This may be explained, of course, in two ways: it may have appeared in earlier, and have been omitted in later representations. But in that case the interested pirate would have been on the watch to seize and secure any such passage thus rendered doubly important. Or it must have been inserted at some time after the date of 1601, when the notes were sent to the printers.

But Sir Thomas Lucy died in 1600. Can we imagine Shakespeare interpolating a clue to a bitter satire on a man after his death?

While I consider my arguments strong enough to prove that Sir Thomas Lucy was not intended to be hit when' Justice Shallow' was conceived, I am not yet in the position to advance another theory; but I would like to put forward some suggestions germane to the inquiry.

I think that it is quite likely that Shakespeare intended a mild generic satire on the effect of country training, especially in a Gloucestershire atmosphere. In support of this view, I may bring forward a remarkable letter, from the State papers at the Record Office, addressed by Sir Charles Percy to Mr. Dudley Carleton, from " Dumbleton, county Gloucester, December 27th." The Record experts add the date as 1600 (?) in the calendar. In it he says:-"I am so pestered with country business that I cannot come to London. If I stay here long, you will find me so dull, that I shall be taken for Justice Silence or Juutice Shallow; therefore take pity upon me, and send me news from time to time, the knowledge of which, though perhaps it will not exempt me from the opinion of a Justice Shallow at London, yet will make me pass for a very sufficient gentleman in Gloucestershire."

It must not be forgotten that Sir Thomas Lucy had a son of his own name, born in 1551, and knighted in 1593, so that there were for seven years at this very period two knights of the same name in the same family. I find from a Lansdowne MS. that on 28th November, 1595, there was entered among "the gentlemen of account living in London," in "the Tower Ward, Sir Thomas Lucye, of the County of

Gloucester, Knight." This is, of course, the son, not the father, styled so because he had married a Gloucestershire heiress, Dorothy Arnold. This association of the name with the county is curious, and has never been noted in this relation, but nothing can be based on it. He was therefore in London when fame was coming to his countryman, Shakespeare, but we know nothing of his relations to the poet, man of literary tastes as the second Sir Thomas was. He had two wives and many children, one, Thomas, died young, another succeeded him on his death in 1605.

This third Sir Thomas was a patron of many poets, and a friend of Lord Herbert, of Cherbury.

But it is also worth remembering that he was more interested than any of his family had been both in horses and in the preservation of game. He it was who bought Fulbrook Park, united it to Hampton Woods, and had it empaled. Only since his time has there been a Statutable Park " of the Lucys at Charlecote.

66

And it is also noteworthy that he did make a Star Chamber matter of a deer-stealing case from his Worcester estate of Sutton Park, that had been brought into the family by his grandmother, Lady Joyce. On July 10th he petitioned the Privy Council against those who had unlawfully taken his deer from his enclosed park, praying punishment on the offenders, that pernicious example might be checked, as had been decreed in 3 James I. He also prayed that the severer punishment for contempt of law might be added. He indicted William Wall, of Rooke, in the County of Worcester, gentleman, Rowland Harnage, of Kynlett, in the County of Salop, gentleman, and other abettors. William Wall pleaded "not guilty," June, 1611, and nothing seems to have followed. The extremely bitter form of the petition has suggested to my mind the possibility that some of the parties concerned may have written the Satirical Ballad,' may have affixed it to his park gates, and may have pointed the resemblance to the opening action of The Merry Wives of Windsor.' It is possible that Shakespeare, then of much influence, may

have sided with them, may even have dashed in then as a merry retort the suggestions of the coat of arms, which have come down to us as associated with the Lucys when spoken of at Stratford. There would be some patent humour in that, at least to the men of his time. It is not usual that three knights of the same name succeed each other so closely, and their names and acts are apt to be confused by later gossips interested in them. Or, on the other hand, the interpolation may have been merely that of a performer of the popular character.

The Fortnightly Review, February, 1903.

T

6

VIII.

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW.'

HERE are several peculiarities in this play which make it difficult to classify among Shakespeare's works. Others are comedies; this, called a history, is nearly a farce. Others have a Prologue or Chorus to introduce the action, or an Epilogue to sum it up; but this is the only one that has an Induction, one which seems totally unconnected with the main action, and does not in any way illustrate its meaning.

The

The Induction is a humorous fragment rather than a play, but it is worth all the comedy it nominally initiates. story was based on an incident in the life of Philip the Good Duke of Burgundy, who carried into his house an artisan whom he had found lying drunk in the streets. He offered his visitor many more amusements than were laid before

Sly, "after which they played a pleasant comedy," the name of which is not given, and the conclusion to the waking dreamer is the same. If, for a moment, we treat the Induction as the play in itself, we may find some parallels in it to' Hamlet.' By the flourish of trumpets the players announce their approach in both cases, as distinguished travellers would

Belike some noble gentleman that means,
Travelling some journey; to repose him here.

66

Ind. Sc. i. The travelling players come to offer their services in a fortunate hour. In Hamlet'"the tragedians of the city" are forced to take to the less reputable exercise of their calling in the provinces, because the aery of children," "little eyases," are now the fashion in the metropolis (a curious incongruity, seeing Hamlet was in the city, and at the Court). In both plays they are cordially received. They have acted well before. "The Lord" and Hamlet each discuss some well-known parts, to prepare them to decide which play should be performed. "The Lord" has some sport in hand, and wants a comedy; Hamlet has a terrible secret, and wants a tragedy. "The Lord" tells them, "Your cunning can assist me much"; Hamlet talks indefinitely to the players while others are present, recalling one play by its mentioning "savoury sallets," and straining his memory to fix the lines about Pyrrhus and Hecuba' to confuse Polonius. As soon as the Chamberlain goes, Hamlet bids the chief player fix The murder of Gonzago" for the next night, adding, "you could, for a need, study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines, which I would set down and insert in it, could you not?" Then he meditates

66

The play's the thing

Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King! "The Lord " tells his servants, "Let them want nothing that my house affords "; Polonius says to Hamlet, "My lord, I will use them according to their desert." To which Hamlet replies, "God's bodykins, man, much better!"

Hamlet's play within the play is introduced by a dumb show, an induction to the performance, the King's conscience is awakened before he has heard all. The Lord is not so particular, and lets the players choose; but it is to be supposed that before a liberal patron, they would perform their newest and their best.

'The Taming of the Shrew' is a play complete in itself, and would only suffer in length by being separated from the "Induction." The question naturally arises, Why were they so connected? As far as regards Shakespeare, it may be only because they are combined in the old play which suggested his. On June 11th, 1594, Henslowe notes receipts at performance, by "my Lord Admeralle and my Lorde Chamberlen men," of The Taming of A Shrewe,' which, curiously enough, immediately follows a similar entry on their playing' Hamlet,' which must have been the old version. In that same year was published "A pleasant conceited historic called The Taming of a Shrew,' as it hath been lately performed by the Earl of Pembroke's servants." This was a rival company. Could it be the same play? Mr. Charles Knight suggests that the two sets of performers might have separate renderings from some older source now lost, probably, from the style, a play written by Greene. The printed version is that of Pembroke's servants. In Shakespeare's (which may have been that of the Chamberlain's men in 1594) all the names are changed except that of Kate, and the language is modified to such an extent that the editors of the First Folio saw fit to include it among Shakespeare's works, though it does not appear in the lists of those copies entered to them or to any other publisher, neither does Meres mention it.

Had he thought it necessary, Shakespeare might have changed the situations fundamentally. As he accepted them, we may discuss the play as his own. While he changed the scene with much advantage, from Athens to Padua, it must not be forgotten that he also changed the scene of the Induction from anywhere to somewhere. The old Induction, though using the name of Sly (the name also of one of Shake