THOUGH Shakespeare's life in London covered a period of approximately twenty-four years, i.e. from about 1586-7 until 1610-11, no poems nor plays of his composition that we now possess--with the possible exception of two of the sonnets written to the "dark lady"--can be dated upon any reasonable grounds earlier than the spring of 1591, nor later than 1611. While it is not yet generally recognised, however, we have practically conclusive circumstantial and inferential evidence in a number of scurrilous allusions by Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe to several persons--whom I find to have been connected with the theatrical interests of James Burbage--which were made in publications issued between 1588 and 1591, that even at this early period Shakespeare had written "ballads," and engaged in dramatic revision or composition; and that he had also at this time attained to a position of critical authority in Burbage's theatrical organisation.

In the two decades between 1591 and 1611 Shakespeare produced three long poems, over one hundred and fifty sonnets, and thirty-one plays; besides revising or rewriting portions of a number of old plays by other hands, the reversion of which he or the Burbages had bought for the use of their company. In this collection of poems and plays we have all that deeply interests the world in Shakespeare. Had these been missing, the hazy conjectures and distorted traditions recorded by his biographers concerning his early and late Stratford years, which are so utterly destitute of any spiritual significance, would never have been rescued from oblivion.

Taken as a whole, in the poems and plays produced by Shakespeare during these two decades, we possess not only the life's work of one of the greatest minds and rarest spirits in recorded history, but when his work is chronologically synchronised with his life and times, and studied biographically as the steadily developing expression of the growth of this spirit and mind in their reaction upon experience, we have also, in the transcendent vision of life which it reveals, the most interesting human document in our literature.

Whatever other merits have been claimed for Shakespeare's art, or however it has been questioned by those who have viewed it astigmatically through academic lenses, all critics of the drama admit the life-likeness of his characterisation and action. By certain scholastic and theoretical critics this naturalness has from time to time been challenged as a derogation from what they appear to have regarded as infallible and immutable dramatic laws, enunciated over two thousand years ago. Such anti-climactic lapses from tragic intensity as the porter's soliloquy in Macbeth, and the garrulity of the clownish countryman with the asp in the catastrophic scene of Antony and Cleopatra, have by such critics been condemned or patronisingly condoned as art, though admittedly level with life, in which tragedy and comedy are inextricably mixed. For these and similar reasons Shakespeare has been accused of "carelessly extending to art the boundless freedom of life itself," a charge which--omitting the carelessness--the living Shakespeare would, no doubt, have regarded as a compliment--as this, modified by his own proper judgment, was apparently his intention.

From the time that we first begin to gain glimmerings of knowledge concerning Shakespeare's earliest dramatic activities in the supercilious and abusive allusions of Greene and Nashe, in their publications from 1588 to 1592, the analytical student may apprehend him as already at odds with contemporary interpretations of classical dramatic conventions, and working consciously upon naturalistic lines. Thomas Nashe, in his Anatomy of Absurdity, in 1589, following up his and Greene's combined attack upon Burbage's stage in Greene's Menaphon, published earlier in the same year, writes of "these upstart reformers of arts," and again--using the plural but with a singular intention, and, alluding to Shakespeare--"they contemn arts as unprofitable, contenting themselves with a little country grammar school knowledge." In Love's Labour's Lost a few years later, when Shakespeare challenges pedantry and its "learned fools," with their "base authority from others' books," and champions the study of life and nature, we get some idea of his anti-scholastic attitude that called forth these earliest attacks. Several years later still, when Chapman, Marston, and Jonson, combining against him, challenged his art with Aristotelian standards, he answered them in Hamlet, definitely proclaiming as his dramatic gospel, "the purpose of playing, whose end both at the first and now was, and is, to hold as it were the mirrour up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." And even towards the close of his dramatic career, though then in a more serene and persuasive mood, we find him still maintaining the same naturalistic thesis when, in A Winter's Tale, the grave and ageing Polixenes instructs the youthful Perdita that

This, clearly, is not the attitude of ignorance, nor yet is it the expression of a "capricious and unsystematic artist," however fortified by alleged "temperament" or "instinct," but of a creative and judicious master of his art, then standing on the top of twenty years of the most successful practical experience on record, and calmly sensible of the excellence of its results when compared with the best efforts of his scholastic critics, and of all other dramatists combined, during that prolific period. The cumulative verdict of the greatest minds during the centuries that have since elapsed has so accentuated the surpassing degree of his excellence, that no dramtic work produced then or since, in England or elsewhere, appears now so surely destined as his to endure as living art into a remote future.

Life and nature, then, being Shakespeare's avowed models, the creation and presentation of the drama his vocation, and the centre of English literary, social, and political life the scene of his activities, it appears evident that he would view this life--the only life that came into his experience--with eyes and mind awake to its dramatic aspects. It is impossible but his plays--vitalised into imperishable art from crude sources or lifeless originals--should not, in this vitalising process, have taken on some recognisable analogy to the life he observed and lived during the two decades of their production, even though such analogy should be unconscious. But when we remember the topical and polemical nature of the Elizabethan stage--influenced as it was by the political or factional interests of the noblemen licensing or patronising the companies or their writers; by the literary hostilities betwen the stage poets and their academic competitors--the self-called "Gentlemen Poets"--as well as by the business and histrionic rivalry of competing theatrical interests--it appears opposed to reason that the most popular dramatist of the time, writing for the most popular company, could for a period of twenty years pursue a serenely detached and unswervingly objective course, uninfluenced by such prevailing conditions. It is much more probable, and may in fact appear, that Shakespeare's and his company's pre-eminence and success made them at times the very storm-centre of such polemics, compelling Shakespeare, despite his reputed gentleness and his acknowledged dramatic objectivity, frequently to enter the lists, either in his patron's personal or factional interests, or in his own or his company's defence. The masterly suggestive art by which as a rule he accomplished his double purpose, and at the same time protected himself and his company from an observant and arbitrary censorship, is displayed by the fact that the majority of his reputed critics are still oblivious to or sceptical of this phase of his work.

should not himself upon occasion have made indirect but intentional use of this effectively suggestive instrument to influence the minds and consciences of others.

For critical purposes it has been aptly said, "Shakespeare's work differs from that of more erudite authors much in the manner that a lake differs from a river": theirs we may at times consider as a whole; his, to appraise judiciously, we are forced to regard as a progressive development. As we trace the stages of this development in his work we become increasingly conscious of the rapid and continuous growth of power and insight in the mind and spirit behind it; and synchronising the work with the facts of his life and environment, we are led to realise in the transfigured reflections of concurrent life which we find mirrored in his great mind something of the functioning, as well as of the limitations, of what we call creative genius, in the fact that with him, as with lesser men who have sailed their course upon "the river of time"--

but in his case, viewed with a vision more attentive, more perceptive, more comprehensive, and withal glorified by the splendour of his imagination, and imperishably vitalised by the magic of his art. I cannot conceive that genius differs from normality in any other manner than in its greater natural capacity, through finer sensibilities, to absorb knowledge form observation and experience and concomitant fineness of judgment and imagination to use this knowledge creatively.

Nothing approaching finality in criticism can be attained that is based upon the spiritually irrelevant traditions and trivial details of extant biography, and which does not take into consideration with Shakespeare's work the necessity for enlarging our knowledge of the man himself, and of his times and environment, in order to gain a clearer conception of the underlying, spiritual causes of the vastly differing spiritual effects exhibited in the drastic changes in the character of his work with the passing years; lacking this, criticism at its best is mere opinion.

In any endeavour made to establish a more definite and logical basis for biography and criticism it is primarily essential that we acquire a much clearer conception than now generally prevails amongst scholars of Shakespeare's beginnings, by seeking more definite knowledge of his theatrical and dramatic affiliations from the time he left Stratford until we find him associated with the Burbages as a sharer in the Lord Chamberlain's company in December 1594.

The next, and an equally if indeed not more important essential, is a correct understanding of the biographical value of the Sonnets, as well as of their literary and critical values, when their dates of production and the manner in which the personal experiences they reveal are co-ordinated chronologically, with tacit reflections of these experiences in Shakespeare's concurrent dramatic work, between 1591 and 1598.

A third biographical requisite, as revealing the venomous odds against which he was compelled to struggle from the very inception to the end of his London career, is a clearer and more extended knowledge of his relations with his jealous academic competitors. The critical aspects of such knowledge are also of value in accounting frequently for things that have been regarded as "incongruities in his art," by what has gravely been termed "an instructed modern criticism."

In the following chapter I purpose to epitomise and simplify a more extended argument, first published in Shakespeare's Lost Years in London, in 1920, showing that Shakespeare began his theatrical career, in from 1586 to 1587, as a bonded serving man for a period of two years to James Burbage, who at that time, as the owner of the Theatre and of the Lord Chamberlain's company (which comprised his theatrical employes and musicians), was affiliated with Edward Alleyn and the Lord Admiral's company. This affiliation continued until 1589, when a reorganisation of these and other companies took place, resulting in the formation of Lord Strange's company, which, with the Admiral's company, continued under the auspices of Burbage and Alleyn until late in 1590, when Alleyn, the Admiral's company, and the majority of Strange's company left Burbage for Henslowe and the Rose Theatre. Shakespeare, who remained with Burbage, now co-operated with his old chief in forming the Earl of Pembroke's company, becoming its leader and principal playwright, continuing in this capacity until the spring of 1594, when a new general reorganisation took place--the majority of Strange's men returning to Burbage and Shakespeare, and the rest remaining with Alleyn and Henslowe, who, with accretions form the Queen's and Sussex's companies, re-established the Admiral's company as an independent unit. This company thereafter for many years continued to be the Burbages' leading competitor for Court and public favour.

In the epitome to follow I will also endeavour to make clear that the invidious allusion to Shakespeare in Robert Greene's posthumously published A Groat's-worth of Wit, in September 1592, was not the first nor an isolated attack upon the poet, but was Greene's last and expiring effort in a series of equally scurrilous but less literally recognisable attacks, made by him in conjuction with Thomas Nashe, against Shakespeare and the Burbage organisation during the past three or four years. As most of these attacks challenged Shakespeare's criticism and revision of dramatic work written by their fellow scholars, it is significant that all logical evidence places the date of Shakespeare's revisionary work in Sir Thomas More at this exact period. It is historically impossible that his revision of this play could have been made at any other time. I will also demonstrate the new and interesting fact that it was the collaborative work of his future arch-enemy, George Chapman, in his play, that Shakespeare now revised, thereby accounting for what I have sought for over thirty years--the inception of Chapman's bitter and prolonged hostility.

In the slurring allusions made by Greene and Nashe in their publications between 1588 and 1591 to Shakespeare and others connected with the Burbage-Alleyn interests, both of these scholars resent the presumption of the "idiot art-masters" of this company in daring to question or revise the work of "scholars." They refer to the "scorn" of "the arts" exhibited by these "upstart reformers of arts," and censure their desire to have plays suited to stage requirements or to the popular comprehension and taste. When the critical attitude of the "scholars" is coupled with the fact that James Burbage was then the oldest and most experienced theatrical manager in England, and withal, as shall be shown, "a stubborn fellow," holding decided opinions of his own, we gain a new and interesting sidelight upon Burbage's managerial methods, which suggests that Shakespeare's early success as a practical playwright was probably, in no small measure, due to the technical guidance of his experienced chief during the formative period of his work. It appears very probable also that his connection with the Burbages, from the beginning to the end of his London career, was the result of what now appears to have been for years one of Burbage's managerial policies--which was, to retain within his own organisation as reader, critic, and writer, a producing playwright of his own technical training. It will become evident that Marlowe immediately preceded Shakespeare with Burbage in this capacity, and that Kyd preceded Marlowe. However new and startling this theory may at first appear, a careful examination of all sources of information will reveal the fact that no evidence exists to show that Kyd, after 1582, or that Marlowe or Shakespeare ever wrote or revised a play for any company other than those working under Burbage's auspices, though certain plays written or revised by all three of them for Burbage and Alleyn were later acted, in still further revised forms, upon other stages.

All of Marlowe's known work, and possibly some unknown work, composed before 1591, was written for the Burbage-Alleyn interests; and all of his work after this date, when Burbage and Alleyn parted, was written for Pembroke's company, under Burbage and Shakespeare.

While our past limited knowledge of Kyd's dramatic work makes all theories regarding him and his work rather indefinite, new evidence to be presented points to prolonged relations with the Burbage-Alleyn interest preceding Marlowe's appearance upon the scene, and of a nature similar to those sustained with them later by Marlowe and Shakespeare, as the company poet.

It would be difficult to select three contemporary dramatists differing so distinctly in temper, spirit, and mind as Kyd, Marlowe, and Shakespeare, yet each in his heyday attained a dramatic prestige and popularity greater than that of any of his dramatic competitors. Assuming for the present their successive connection with Burbage, may we not reasonably infer that Burbage's stagecraft and training were in some measure responsible for their preponderant popularity; and that his managerial methods of adapting his presentations to his stage, his time, and existing taste and manners, which were so superciliously contemned by Greene and Nashe, proved more effective to practice than the more "learned" theories of the scholars applied upon other and more officially favoured stages? Within four years of the junction between Burbage and Alleyn, in 1585, they had largely supplanted the Queen's company for Court performances, for which specific purpose that company had been organised in 1583--and two years later had completely ousted them. It was their steady growth in Court and public favour and the consequent decline of the Queen's company, for which Greene wrote, that aroused his jealousy at this time.

Incidently, the argument and evidence for this theory will serve also to identify Lord Hunsdon as Kyd's hitherto unknown patron, referred to as "my Lord" and "his lordship" in Kyd's letter to Lord Keeper Puckering concerning his acquaintance with Marlowe, which was written shortly after Marlowe's death in June 1593, and may also account for Kyd's evident animus against Marlowe, as well as for Burbage's loss of Lord Hunsdon's protection from 1589 until 1594, when--nearly a year after Marlowe's death--his patronage was restored.

At the present time there is as little definitely known concerning the company and dramatic affiliations of Greene, Peele, Marlowe, Lodge, Nashe, Chapman, Kyd, and Munday during the seven years preceding 1594, as has hitherto been known regarding Shakespeare's status and whereabouts during these, his first seven years in London. In the following pages, besides clarifying Shakespeare's theatrical connections during these seven years, new and revelatory light will be thrown upon the concurrent company affiliations of all the other writers mentioned.

It will appear evident that Robert Greene was continuously connected with the old Queen's company, from the time he left Cambridge in 1583 until the end of 1590, when this company disrupted, its men and properties being then largely absorbed by Strange's and Pembroke's companies, while a portion of its membership formed a new Queen's company, which affiliated with Sussex's men for the following three to three and a half years; Greene continuing to write for this united company until shortly before his death in 1592.

It will also be shown that Thomas Lodge wrote for Burbage and Alleyn between about 1585 and 1587, and was connected with the old Queen's men, as a collaborator with Greene, from about 1588 at the latest until the end of 1590; and that he wrote independently for the new Queen's and Sussex's men between the beginning of 1591 and August in that year, when he left England on a voyage to the South Seas.

Though it is at present known that Thomas Nashe collaborated with Greene in other than dramatic work as early as 1589, nothing is known of their dramatic collaboration except Greene's possible reference to Nashe as "young Juvenal," "who lastly with me together writ a comedy," in his A Groat's-worth of Wit, published after Greene's death in 1592. It will here be shown that Nashe collaborated with Greene in at least two plays for the new Queen's and Sussex's men between the beginning of 1591 and about the middle of 1592, that one of these plays was the play referred to by Greene, and that Nashe was "young Juvenal."

It will also become apparent that Marlowe was connected with Burbage and Alleyn between about 1586-7 and the end of 1590, when Burbage and Alleyn parted; and that he then continued his connection with Burbage and Shakespeare, as a writer for Pembroke's company, until his death in the middle of 1593.

Nothing is at present definitely known of Peele's theatrical affiliations from the beginning until the end of his career, except that in 1581 his Arraignment of Paris was presented by the Children of the Chapel. It is probable that he wrote other plays for this company, or for Oxford's company, between 1581 and 1589. It will be indicated by the allusions of Greene and Nashe, in 1589, to Alleyn and Peele, as well as by the later possession by Alleyn and Henslowe's companies of Peele's early work, that Peele became connected with the Burbage-Alleyn interests as a writer for the Admiral's company in this year. Peele's hand in the revision of the First Part of Henry VI., and in Titus Andronicus, indicates that, when Burbage and Alleyn parted in 1590, he accompanied Alleyn to Henslowe. His later hand in the Admiral's Henry V., upon which it will be shown that Shakespeare's Henry V. is based, reveals him as a writer for the Admiral's company as late as 1595. It is probable that he continued in this connection until his death in or shortly before 1598.

The new and interesting fact will also be demonstrated that George Chapman, instead of beginning his dramatic career in from 1593 to 1594, as is now generally supposed, was already engaged in dramatic collaboration with Anthony Munday, for Oxford's company, as early as from 1581-2, and as late as from 1586-7, and probably as late as 1589, when he and Munday became connected with the Admiral's company under Edward Alleyn.

The historical facts and deductions to be presented concerning the theatrical affiliations of these early contemporaries of Shakespeare's, in conjunction with new critical light correcting the misascription of a number of plays of this period, will serve to clarify our present very nebulous ideas of the relations of these writers for the dramatic companies, to each other and to Shakespeare, to dissipate much current critical error, as well as to reveal the inception of the jealous hostility with which Chapman, and those he later influenced, pursued Shakespeare until the end of his dramatic career.