Globe Theatre was opened in the spring of that year, and among the plays produced after the opening was Henry V, and soon after in this year As You Like It.—Shakespeare's Life and Work, p. 138. Again, on p. 208, Fleay says, 'The date may, I 'think, be still more exactly fixed from I, ii, 84, "the little wit that fools have was ""silenced," which alludes probably to the burning of satirical books by public 'authority 1st of June, 1599. Every indication points to the latter part of 1599 as 'the date of production. . . . . The comparison of the world to a stage in II, vii, suggests a date subsequent to the building of The Globe, with its motto, Totus mundus 'agit histrionem; and the introduction of a fool proper, in place of a comic clown, 'such as is found in all the anterior comedies, confirms this: the "fools" only occur in plays subsequent to Kempe's leaving the company.' I have no great faith in the allusion to the burning of the satirical books, but that the change from 'clowns' to 'fools' should follow the retirement from my lord Chamberlain's men of Will Kempe, the pre-eminent clown,' is one of those shrewd, happy inferences which Fleay's through and through familiarity with the stage-history of Shakespeare's day enables him at times to make, with so much force.

To the two kinds of evidence, External and Internal, concerning the Date of Composition there may be added a third,—viz. : that derived from a close scrutiny and comparison of the metre of the different plays. It is assumed that certain peculiarities of style or methods of poetic treatment will mark the growth of the dramatist, and that, in general, the Seven Ages will prove true of the inner as of the outer man. This idea had been floating dimly in men's minds ever since it was first put forth by Edwards in his criticism of Warburton, in the last century. But it attracted little attention, despite the pleas put forth in its behalf by such fine minds as Spedding in England and Herzberg in Germany, until the New Shakspere Society arose and Fleay came to the fore with his laborious results of years of silent study. Since then a fierce light has beat on weak endings' and 'light endings,' on end-stopped lines' and 'pauses,' until now we have all of Shakespeare's plays as elaborately, if not as accurately, tabulated and calculated as the Ephemerides of the Nautical Almanac. If the results have not been quite commensurate with the outlay, it is not for a moment to be thought that the time for all the workers has been lost. Like the magic book of the physician Douban in the Arabian Tale, by merely turning the leaves of Shakespeare a subtle charm is imparted and absorbed. If in the first flush of accomplished work the advocates of this new test somewhat exaggerated their claims for its accuracy, surely with Burke, who could 'pardon some things to the spirit of Liberty,' we may pardon some things to the zeal for Shakespeare. And we should surely remember such temperate words as these of Dr INGRAM's, which we may accept as a summary of the best thought on the subject: I quite recognise the necessity of subordi'nating verse-tests in general to the ripe conclusions of the higher criticism, if these 'two sorts of evidence should ever be found at variance. But I believe that the more thoroughly the former are understood, and the more scientifically they are used, the 'more they will be found in accordance with the best æsthetic judgements. What appears to me surprising is, not that the verse-tests should sometimes appear to 'sanction wrong conclusions, but that they should, to such a remarkable extent, agree 'amongst themselves, and harmonize with every other mode of investigation which 'can be applied to the same questions.'

BATHURST, who was the first, I believe, to apply systematically to all the plays the test of metre as a means of determining their chronology, says (p. 76): As You Like

It is in a more advanced style of metre than Much Ado [which was printed in 1600]; see, particularly, the speech of Jaques about the Fool, Orlando's speech, 'If 'you have,' &c. Double endings not unusual. Rhymes at the end of speeches occur. 'One speech is in alternate rhymes, III, i. The "Seven Ages" are well known. 'The verse there broken, though it is an enumerative passage. Weak endings: 'Swearing that we || Are mere usurpers." "For 'tis | The royal disposition of that ""beast." The speeches often end on a half-line, which is, I believe, always regularly taken up. This is perfectly the reverse of an historical or political play. I 'would put it as early as possible. So say 1598 or 1599.'

6.46

INGRAM, however, places it, according to its proportion of Light and Weak Endings,' after Much Ado. In his List (New Shakspere Society's Transactions, 1874, Series I, p. 450) Much Ado is No. 14, As You Like It, No 15, and Twelfth Night, No. 16. The Merchant of Venice is No. 9. This would put the date of As You Like It well into 1600, and to that extent confirms Wright's conjecture.

FURNIVALL divides all the plays into ⚫ Periods,' and the Periods' into 'Groups.' This play is placed in the Second Period,' and in a Group of Three Sunny- or 'Sweet-Time Comedies: Much Ado (1599–1600); As You Like It (1600); Twelfth 'Night (1601).'

DOWDEN divides the Histories, Comedies, and Tragedies into Early, Middle, and Later each, and subdivides into Groups. The same three plays, just enumerated, he places in a Group of Musical Sadness,' with Jaques as a link to the next Group of 'Discordant Sadness.'

To recapitulate:

The Date of Composition of As You Like It is assigned by COLLIER to summer of '

DYCE

NEIL

BATHURST, GRANT WHITE

HUDSON between'

MALONE, SKOTTowe, Staunton, Halliwell, Cowden-Clarke,

MOBERLY, ROLFE, FLEAY

REV. JOHN HUNTER

CHALMERS, DRAKE, WrightT, FURNIVALL

KNIGHT

1598 or 1599 1598 and 1599

1599

1599 or 1600

. 1600 1600 or 1601

In conclusion, there is on this Date of the Composition a happy unanimity, which centres about the close of the year 1599; if a few months carry it back into 1598, or carry it forward almost to 1601, surely we need not be more clamorous than a parrot against rain over such trifles. As I have said before, and shall repeat until I change my opinion, the whole subject is one which to my temperament has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the play itself or to the enjoyment thereof. An exact knowledge, to the very day of the week, or of the month, when Shakespeare wrote it, can no more heighten the charm of Rosalind's loveliness and wit than would the knowledge of the cost per yard of her doublet and hose. Does ever a question concerning the Date of Composition arise in our thoughts when we are sitting at the play? Still, it would be a very grey, sombre world if we all thought alike, and undoubtedly to

many minds of far higher reach than mine the Date of the Composition has charms: for such as seek information about it, in the foregoing pages a full and, I trust, impartial account of what has been written thereon will be found.

SOURCE OF THE PLOT

IN 1754 DR ZACHARY GREY (Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 156) wrote: 'Several passages in this play were certainly bor'rowed from the Coke's Tale of Gamelyn in Chaucer,' and thereupon proceeded to give an abstract of this Tale of Gamelyn, reciting the passages wherein Shakespeare had followed Chaucer, as Grey supposed.

Some time after, both CAPELL and FARMER, in the same year, 1767, announced what was more nearly the truth, that As You Like It was founded, not on the Tale of Gamelyn, but on a novel by Lodge.

CAPELL, in the Introduction to his edition (p. 50), writes as follows: 'A novel or ‘(rather) pastoral romance, intitl'd “Euphues' Golden Legacy," written in a very fan'tastical style by Dr Thomas LODGE, and by him first publish'd in the year 1590, in 'quarto, is the foundation of As you like it. Besides the fable, which is pretty exactly 'follow'd, the out-lines of certain principal characters may be observ'd in the novel;

' and some expressions of the novelist (few, indeed, and of no great moment) seem 'to have taken possession of Shakespeare's memory, and thence crept into the play.' Dr FARMER'S note is to be found in his Essay On the Learning of Shakespeare (one cannot but think, from the style and contents of this Essay, that a more exact title would have been On the Learning of Richard Farmer, and the Ignorance of William Shakespeare). On p. 15 the essayist says: 'As You Like It was "certainly ""borrowed," if we believe Dr Grey and Mr Upton, from the Coke's Tale of Gamelyn, which, by the way, was not printed till a century afterwards; when, in truth, 'the old Bard, who was no hunter of M.S.S., contented himself with Dr Lodge's Rosalynd or Euphues' Golden Legacye.

STEEVENS supplemented Farmer's remark with: 'Shakespeare has followed 'Lodge's Novel more exactly than is his general custom when he is indebted to such 'worthless originals; and has sketched some of his principal characters and borrowed 'a few expressions from it. His imitations, &c., however, are in general too insig'nificant to merit transcription. It should be observed that the characters of Jaques, 'the Clown, and Audrey are entirely of the poet's own formation.'

6

This judgement of Steevens stirred COLLIER'S indignation; in the Poetical Decameron (vol. ii, p. 176, ed. 1820) Collier exclaims, in reference to it, 'Steevens was a tasteless pedant, and nothing better could be expected from him.'

KNIGHT, too, was no less angered, and after quoting the remark of Steevens, which I have just given, bursts forth: 'All this is very unscrupulous, ignorant, and 'tasteless. Lodge's Rosalynd is not a worthless original; Shakspere's imitations of it are not insignificant. Lodge's Novel is, in many respects, however quaint and 'pedantic, informed with a bright poetical spirit, and possesses a pastoral charm 'which may occasionally be compared with the best parts of Sidney's Arcadia, When COLLIER reprinted Rosalynde in his Shakespeare Library, he again replies to Steevens: 'Comparing Rosalynde with As You Like It, the former may indeed be

"termed "worthless," inasmuch as Shakespeare's play is so immeasurably superior to 'it; . . . but placing Lodge's Novel by the side of other productions of the same class, 'we cannot hesitate to declare it a very amusing and varied composition, full of agree'able and graceful invention (for we are aware of no foreign authority for any of the 'incidents) [Does "foreign authority" exclude the Tale of Gamelyn ?-ED.], and 'with much natural force and simplicity in the style of the narrative. That it is here ' and there disfigured by the faults of the time, by forced conceits, by lowness of allu'sion and expression, and sometimes by inconsistency and want of decorum in the 'characters, cannot be denied. There are errors which the judgement and genius of 'Shakespeare taught him to avoid; but the admitted extent and nature of his general 'obligations to Lodge afford a high tribute to the excellence of that “original,” which 'Steevens pronounced "worthless." It may be almost doubted whether he had even 'taken the trouble to read carefully that performance upon which he delivered so 'dogmatical and definitive a condemnation.'

GRANT WHITE rates Lodge's Novel differently. Although,' he says (ed. i), 'there is this identity in the plots of the tale and the comedy, Shakespeare's creative 'power appears none the less remarkably in the latter. The personages in the two 'works have nothing in common but their names and the functions which they per'form. In the tale they are without character, and exist but to go through certain 'motions and utter certain formally constructed Complaints and Passions. The ladies 'quote Latin in a style and with a copiousness which would delight a Women's Rights 'Convention, and quench, in any man of flesh and blood the ardor of that love which 'is the right most prized of woman. Rosalind, for instance, musing upon her dawn'ing passion for Rosader and his poverty, says: "Doth not Horace tell thee what ""methode is to be used in love? Querenda pecunia primum, post nummos virtus." 'There was a model for the traits and language of Shakespeare's Rosalind!'

Nor did age mellow White's judgement. In his second edition he reiterates: 'The comedy is, in fact, a mere dramatization of the tale-an adaptation it would 'now be called-the personages, the incidents, most of the names, and even some of 'the language, being found in Lodge's Novel. The chief difference between the two -more remarkable, even, than that one is a tale and the other a drama-is that the 'ambitious tale is one of the dullest and dreariest of all the obscure literary perform'ances that have come down to us from past ages, and the comedy, written as journey'work by a playwright to please a miscellaneous audience, is the one bright, immortal 'woodland poem of the world.'

DYCE (ed. iii): If Steevens somewhat undervalues [Lodge's Rosalynde], Mr 'Collier greatly overrates it.'

W. C. HAZLITT, on the other hand, in his reprint of Collier's Shakespeare Library, says: It appears to me that Mr Collier states the matter fairly enough.'

'Never,' says CAMPBELL, 'was the prolixity and pedantry of a prosaic narrative 'transmuted by genius into such magical poetry. In the days of James I, George Heriot, the Edinburgh merchant, who built a hospital still bearing his name, is said 'to have made his fortune by purchasing for a trifle a quantity of sand that had been 'brought as ballast by a ship from Africa. As it was dry, he suspected from its 'weight that it contained gold, and he succeeded in filtering a treasure from it. 'Shakespeare, like Heriot, took the dry and heavy sand of Lodge and made gold 'out of it.'

As we have seen, Steevens, by his supercilious reference to Lodge, stirred Knight's anger, and Dr Farmer was equally unfortunate when he said that the old bard was

'no hunter of MSS.' 'Thus,' exclaims KNIGHT, "the old bard," meaning Shake'speare, did not take the trouble of doing, or was incapable of doing, what another 'old bard (first a player and afterwards a naval surgeon) did with great care—consult 'the manuscript copy' of the Tale of Gamelyn. Thereupon, Knight undertakes to show that both Shakespeare and Lodge made use of the Tale of Gamelyn. That Lodge was indebted to Gamelyn will be, I think, conceded by all, but Shakespeare's indebtedness to that source is founded by Knight on three incidents wherein Lodge and Shakespeare do not agree, and wherein Shakespeare took the hint, so Knight thinks, from Gamelyn: First, Lodge represents Rosader (pronounced, by the way, with the accent on the first syllable: Rósader) as having had bequeathed to him the largest share of his father's estate. That to Orlando should have been devised the smallest, Knight maintains is due to the hint which Shakespeare took from the deliberations of the old Knight's friends in Gamelyn. To this difference in treatment Knight thinks is due the entirely different conception of the two characters, Rosader and Orlando. Secondly, in Gamelyn, the old man, whose sons are fatally injured by the Wrestler, 'bigan bitterly his hondes for to wrynge.' In Lodge's Novel the father 'never changed his countenance.' Wherefore, when Shakespeare represents the old father as making 'pitiful dole' over his boys, Knight detects therein the direct traces of Gamelyn. Thirdly, in Lodge, when the Champion approaches Rosader, he simply gives him a shake by the shoulder'; in As You Like It he mocks Orlando with taunting speeches; and so in Gamelyn he starts towards the youth, and sayde "who "is thy fader, and who is thy sire? For sothe thou art a gret fool, that thou come ""hire."

The force of these proofs is, I think, weakened by the following considerations: Had the largest share of the father's estate been bequeathed, contrary to English custom, to the youngest son, Orlando, Oliver's jealousy and envy would not have been motiveless; it would have been scarcely unnatural. Secondly, the bitter lamentations of a father over the violent deaths of his sons, or, thirdly, the mocking jeers of a braggart, are none of them of so unusual or of so extraordinary a character that Shakespeare need have hunted round for authority or suggestion.

666

666

In The New Shakspere Society's Transactions (Part ii, p. 277, 1882) W. G. STONE compares As You Like It and Rosalynde. In addition to Knight's three points of resemblance between Gamelyn and Orlando, Stone, in this good essay, detects 'five 'other parallelisms, more or less clear,' as follows: 'After his father's death, Johan, 'Gamelyn's eldest brother," clothed him [Gamelyn] and fed him yvel and eek wrothe " '[see 1. 73, post]. Orlando complains to Adam that Oliver's "horses. . . . are faire "“with their feeding, . . . . hee lets mee feede with his Hindes." Lodge only says, 'generally, that Saladym made "Rosader his foote boy for the space of two or three yeares, keeping him in such servile subjection, as if he had been the sonne of any country vassal." When Oliver called Orlando a “villaine," the latter replied: “I ""am no villaine: I am the yongest sonne of Sir Rowland de Boys, he was my father, "and he is thrice a villaine that saies such a father begot villaines." Gamelyn 'answered the epithet "gadelyng," thus: "I am no worse gadelyng ne no worse wight, But born of a lady and geten of a knight" (l. 107, 108). As Gamelyn 'rode away to the wrestling-match, Johan [hoped] "He mighte breke his nekke in ""that wrastlyng” (l. 194). In commending Orlando to Charles's "discretion," 'Oliver said: "I had as liefe thou didst breake his necke as his finger." The wrestler thus taunted Gamelyn: "Come thou ones in myn hond, schalt thou never the" (1. '234). Duke Frederick said: "You shall trie but one fall." Charles answered:

6.66