Shakespeare's Lost Years in London, 1586-1592 Part 9

K. JOHN. Speak, man! be sudden, who thy father was.

PHILIP. Please it your Majesty, Sir Robert ...

Philip, that Falconbridge cleaves to thy jaws: (_Aside_) It will not out; I cannot for my life Say I am son unto a Falconbridge.

Let land and living go! 'tis Honour's fire That makes me swear King Richard was my sire.

Base to a King, adds t.i.tle of more state, Than knight's begotten, though legitimate.

Please it your Grace, I am King Richard's son.

While it is generally agreed by text critics that Shakespeare's _King John_ was drastically revised in about 1596, the metrical tests and the scarcity of cla.s.sical allusions denote its composition at about the same period as that of the original composition of _Richard II._; and though the later time revision of both of these plays has no doubt replaced much of Shakespeare's earlier work in them with matter of a later time, an early date for their original composition is very evident. I therefore a.s.sign the original composition of _King John_ to the early part of the year 1591, and believe, that in writing this play Shakespeare worked from a copy of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, and that he followed, and still further developed, the original intention of that play regarding the interests of Sir John Perrot. It is evident that _King John_ was written at the time _The Troublesome Raigne_ was published in 1591, and that the play was Burbage property when it was published. A play was not as a rule published until it had outrun its interest upon the stage, or had been replaced by a new play upon the same subject.

While records of Henslowe's affiliations with Lord Strange's and the Admiral's companies do not appear in his _Diary_ until February 1592, when the Rose Theatre was ready for their occupancy, it is likely that their connection commenced in the previous year and that his affiliations with the Queen's company ended at the same time. The number of old plays formerly owned by the Queen's company that came into the hands of Strange's, the Admiral's, and Pembroke's men at this time were probably purchased from Henslowe, upon the reorganisation of companies in 1591-92, or else were brought to these companies as properties by Queen's men who joined them upon the disruption of this large and powerful company at this period. Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and John Sinkler, whose names are mentioned in _The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_, were evidently old Queen's men, the former two joining Pembroke's men, and Sinkler, Strange's men at this time. The entry of their names as actors in this play was evidently made while it was a Queen's property and when the Queen's company acted under Henslowe's auspices at the Rose Theatre between 1587 and 1591. Both Jeffes and Spencer rejoined Henslowe upon the new reorganisation of companies in 1594, and continued to perform with him and the Lord Admiral's men as Pembroke's men until 1597, when they became Admiral's men. After Spencer was killed in a duel by Ben Jonson in 1598, his widow continued to be a protege or pensioner of Henslowe's for some years.

The generally accepted belief that the old _Henry VI._, _The Contention_, and _The True Tragedie_ were--like _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, _The Seven Deadly Sins_, and other plays owned by companies with which Burbage was connected--originally Queen's plays, is responsible for the otherwise unsupported a.s.sumption that Burbage was a member and the manager of the Queen's company for several years.

As the disruption of the old Queen's company and its reorganisation into a smaller company under the two Duttons, as well as the inception of Henslowe's connection with Strange's men, evidently took place some time between the Christmas season of 1590-91, when the Queen's company performed four times at Court and the Admiral-Strange company only once, and the Christmas season of 1591-92, when Strange's company performed six times and the Queen's only once, and then for the last time on record, it is evident that Pembroke's company was formed also in this year. It is not unlikely then that Shakespeare's recast of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ into _King John_ was made at the instigation of the Earl of Pembroke himself at the time of Perrot's arrest in 1591. As Pembroke's father was a lifelong friend of Perrot's it is extremely probable that he also would be his partisan and well-wisher.

In every poem or play written by Shakespeare from the time he made the acquaintance of the Earl of Southampton at the end of 1591, and even for some time after the accession of James I. in 1603, I find some reflection of his interest in that n.o.bleman or in the fortunes of the Ess.e.x party with which he was affiliated. I find no reflection of this interest in _King John_ nor in _The Comedy of Errors_, except in a few pa.s.sages which palpably pertain to a period of revision in the former play. From this and other subjective evidence already advanced I date the composition of both of these plays in 1591, and in doing so conform to the chronological conclusions reached by authoritative text critics whose judgments have been formed altogether upon textual and stylistic grounds.

While nearly all writers upon the Elizabethan drama recognise the topical, political, or controversial nature of much of the dramatic representation of that age, it is usual to deny for Shakespeare's plays any such topical significance. This att.i.tude of the critics is due largely to neglect or ignorance of contemporary history, and also to the lack of a proper understanding of the chronological order in which the plays were produced, and their consequent inability to synchronise the characters or action of the plays, with circ.u.mstances of Shakespeare's life, or with matters of contemporary interest, as well as to the masterly objective skill by which he disguised his intentions, in order to protect himself and his company from the stringent statutes then in force, prohibiting the presentation of matters concerning Church or State upon the stage.

CHAPTER VII

THE INCEPTION OF THE FRIENDs.h.i.+P BETWEEN SHAKESPEARE AND THE EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON

1591-1594

A few months after the publication of Greene's _A Groatsworth of Wit_, Henry Chettle issued a book ent.i.tled _Kinde Heartes Dreame_, to which he prefaced an apology for publis.h.i.+ng Greene's attack upon Shakespeare. He writes: "I am as sorry as if the original fault had been my fault, because myselfe have seene his demeanour no lesse civill than he exelent in the qualitie he professes, besides divers of wors.h.i.+p have reported his uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that approoves his art." When critically examined, these references to Shakespeare take on a somewhat greater biographical value than has usually been claimed for them. Agreeing with the a.s.sumption that Shakespeare left Stratford between 1586 and 1587,--that is, at between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-three years,--we are informed by these allusions, that by the time he had reached his twenty-eighth year he had attained such social recognition as to have enlisted in his behalf the active sympathies of "divers of wors.h.i.+p,"--that is, men of a.s.sured social prestige and distinction,--whose protest against Greene's attack evidently induced Chettle's amends.

Chettle's book was published in December 1592; just four months later, in April 1593, _Venus and Adonis_ was licensed for publication, and shortly afterwards was issued with the well-known dedication to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. It is reasonable to a.s.sume that this poem and its dedication had been submitted in MS. to Southampton and held some time previous to the date of the application for licence to publish, and that his favour was well a.s.sured before the poem was finally let go to press. The few months intervening between Greene's attack and Chettle's apology, and the application for licence to publish, may then easily be bridged by the reading in MS. form of _Venus and Adonis_ by Southampton's friends. It is likely also that Greene's public attack upon Shakespeare led this generous and high-spirited n.o.bleman to acquiesce in the use of his name as sponsor for the publication. The nearness of these dates and incidents gives us good grounds for believing that the Earl of Southampton was included in the number referred to by Chettle as "divers of wors.h.i.+p." In using the expression "the qualitie he professes," Chettle plainly referred to Shakespeare's profession as an actor-manager, and of his excellence in this respect bears his own record: "myselfe," he writes, "_have seene_ his demeanour no lesse civill than he exelent in the qualitie he professes." Of Shakespeare's literary merits, however, he expresses no personal knowledge, but tells us that "divers of wors.h.i.+p have reported his uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that approoves his art." Had Chettle referred to any of Shakespeare's known dramatic work he could have pa.s.sed his own judgment, as in fact he does upon his civility as manager and his excellence as an actor. Having seen Shakespeare act he would also, no doubt, have heard his lines declaimed had our poet at that period produced upon the _public boards_ any of his original dramas. The term "facetious grace"

might well be applied to the manner and matter of Shakespeare's lighter comedies had any of them been _publicly acted_, but would be somewhat inapt if applied to the rather stilted staginess of his early historical work. Much argument has been advanced in various attempts to prove that Shakespeare produced _Love's Labour's Lost_, _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, _Romeo and Juliet_, and _Midsummer Nights Dream_ previous to the year 1591-92, but no particle of evidence, either external or internal, has yet been advanced in support of these a.s.sumptions; much, however, has been advanced against them. If we may accept Shakespeare's own subscribed statement as evidence, and that evidence is truthful, _Venus and Adonis_ was his first acknowledged original literary effort.

In the dedication to Southampton he distinctly names it "the first heir of my invention." It is probable, then, that the "facetious grace" in writing, of which "divers of wors.h.i.+p" had reported, referred to this poem, which had been held then for several months (as were his Sonnets for years) in MS. "among his private friends."

At the time that Chettle published his _Kinde Heartes Dreame_ Shakespeare had already produced _The Comedy of Errors_ and _King John_, and had evidently had a hand with Marlowe in the revision of _The True Tragedie of the Duke of York_. It is unlikely, however, that Chettle had witnessed a performance of _The Comedy of Errors_, which was produced primarily for private presentation. _The True Tragedie of the Duke of York_ and _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ were both old plays by other hands, and it was for publis.h.i.+ng Greene's attack upon Shakespeare for his share in the revision of the former, that Chettle now apologised. He would therefore not regard his revision of _The Troublesome Raigne_, if he knew of it, as original work. It is evident, then, Shakespeare's "facetious grace in writing," of which Chettle had heard, referred either to _Venus and Adonis_, or _The Comedy of Errors_, or both, neither of which were known to the public at this time.

Friends.h.i.+p may perhaps be too strong a term to apply to the relations that subsisted at this date between Southampton and Shakespeare, but we have good proof in Chettle's references to him late in 1592, in the dedication of _Venus and Adonis_ in 1593, and of _Lucrece_ in 1594, as well as the first _book_ of Sonnets,--which I shall later show belongs to the earlier period of their connection,--that the acquaintance between these two men, at whatever period it may have commenced, was at least in being towards the end of the year 1592. A brief outline and examination of the recorded incidents of Southampton's life in these early years may throw some new light upon the earliest stage of this acquaintance, especially when those incidents and conditions are considered _correlatively with the spirit and intention of the poems which Shakespeare wrote for him, and dedicated to him a little later_.

Thomas Wriothesley, second Earl of Southampton, and father of Shakespeare's patron, died on 4th October 1581. Henry, his only surviving son, thus became Earl of Southampton before he had attained his eighth birthday, and consequently became, and remained until his majority, a ward of the Crown. The Court of Chancery was at that period a much simpler inst.i.tution than it is to-day, and Lord Burghley seems personally to have exercised the chief functions of that Court in its relation to wards in Chancery, and also to have monopolised its privileges. We may infer that this was a position by no means distasteful to that prudent minister's provident and nepotic spirit.

Burghley was essentially of that type of statesmen who are better contented with actual power, and its accruing profits, than the appearance of power and the glory of its trappings. Leicester, Raleigh, and Ess.e.x might, in turn, pose their day as they willed upon the political stage so long as they confined themselves to subordinate or ornamental capacities; but whenever they attempted seriously to encroach upon the reins of power, he set himself to circ.u.mvent them with a patience and finesse that invariably wrought their undoing.

In this system of politics he had an apt pupil in his son, Sir Robert Cecil, who, viewed through the ages, while presenting a less solid figure than his father, displays a much more refined and Machiavellian craft.

The attention and care which Burghley bestowed from the beginning upon his young ward's affairs bespeak an interest within an interest when his prudent and calculating nature is borne in mind and the later incidents of his guardians.h.i.+p are considered.

Towards the end of 1585, at the age of twelve, Southampton became a student of St. John's College, Cambridge, from whence he graduated as M.A. about four years later, _i.e._ in June 1589. After leaving Cambridge in 1589, _he lived for over a year with his mother at Cowdray House in Suss.e.x_. Early in this year, or possibly while Southampton was still at Cambridge, Burghley had opened negotiations with the Countess of Southampton with the object of uniting the interests and fortunes of her son with his own house, by consummating a marriage between this wealthy and promising young peer and his own granddaughter, Lady Elizabeth Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. Burghley's extreme interest in the match is fully attested by a few letters that are still extant. In the Calendar State Papers we have an apologetic letter from Sir Thomas Stanhope (whose wife and daughter had recently visited Lady Southampton at Cowdray) to Lord Burghley, dated 15th July 1590, a.s.suring him that he had never sought to procure the young Earl of Southampton in marriage for his daughter, as he knew Burghley intended marriage between him and the Lady Vere. That an actual engagement of marriage had already been entered into, we have proof in another letter dated 19th September 1590, from Anthony Brown, Viscount Montague (Southampton's maternal grandfather), to Lord Burghley. Regarding this engagement he writes, that Southampton "is not averse from it," and repeats further, that his daughter, Lady Southampton, is not aware of any alteration in her son's mind. The tone of this latter epistle does not seem to evince any great enthusiasm for the match upon the part of either Southampton or his mother; its rather diffident spirit was not lost upon Burghley, who, within a few days of its receipt, commanded the attendance of his young ward at Court. Upon 14th October 1590--that is, less than a month after Viscount Montague's letter to Burghley--we have a letter from Lady Southampton announcing her son's departure for London, and commending him to Burghley, but making no mention of the proposed marriage. _From the fact that she thanks Burghley for the "long time" he "had intrusted"

her son with her, we may infer that his present departure for London was occasioned by Burghley's order, and also that the "long time"_ indicated by Lady Southampton's letter, was the interval between Southampton's leaving Cambridge in June 1589 and his present departure for London in October 1590. We are also a.s.sured by this data that Southampton had not travelled upon the Continent previous to his coming to Court. Between the time of his coming to London in October 1590 and August 1591, I find no dates in contemporary records referring to Southampton; but it appears evident that these nine months were spent at Court.

Some misgivings regarding the young Earl's desire for the match with his granddaughter seem to have arisen in Burghley's mind in March 1592, _at which time Southampton was with the English forces in France_. From this we may judge that Southampton's departure for the wars was undertaken at his own initiative and not at Burghley's suggestion. It appears likely that a lack of marital ardour inspired his martial ardour at this time, and that Burghley was conscious of his disinclination to the proposed marriage. In a letter dated 6th March 1592 (new style) Roger Manners writing to Burghley tells him he has been at North Hall with the Countess of Warwick, whom he reports as "very well inclined to the match between the Earl of Bedford and the Lady Vere." "She is desirous to know," he adds, "if your Lords.h.i.+p approves of it." While this letter shows that Burghley at this date had doubts regarding Southampton's fulfilment of his engagement, other inferences lead me to judge that _it was not finally disrupted until the spring of 1594_.

We have record that Southampton's name was entered as a student of Gray's Inn in July 1590,--that is, three months before his arrival in London,--and may therefore a.s.sume that some of his subsequent time in London was occupied in more or less perfunctory legal studies.

As continental travel and an acquaintance with foreign tongues--at least Italian and French--had then come to be regarded as a part of a n.o.bleman's education, Burghley, soon after Southampton's coming to Court, provided him with a tutor of languages in the person of John Florio, who thereafter continued in his pay and patronage as late as, if not later than, 1598. Even after this date Southampton continued to befriend Florio for many years.

As Florio continued in Southampton's service during the entire Sonnet period and played an important role in what shall hereafter be developed as _The Story of the Sonnets_, and as he shall also be shown to have provided Shakespeare with a model for several important characters in _The Plays of the Sonnet Period_, a brief consideration of his heredity and personal characteristics may help us to realise the manner in which Shakespeare held "the mirror up to nature" in his dramatic characterisations.

John Florio was born before 1553 and was the son of Michael Angelo Florio, a Florentine Protestant, who left Italy in the reign of Henry VIII. to escape the persecution in the Valteline. Florio's father was pastor to a congregation of his religious compatriots in London for several years. He was befriended by Archbishop Cranmer, and was patronised by Sir William Cecil during the reign of Edward VI.; but lost his church and the patronage of Cecil on account of charges of gross immorality that were made against him. We are informed by Anthony Wood that the elder Florio left England upon the accession of Mary, and moved to the Continent, probably to France, where John Florio received his early education. The earliest knowledge we have of John Florio in England is that he lived at Oxford for several years in his youth, and that, in or about 1576, he became tutor in Italian to a Mr. Barnes, son of the Bishop of Durham. In 1581, according to Anthony Wood, Florio matriculated at Magdalen and was teacher and instructor to certain scholars at the University. In 1578 he was still living at Oxford when he dedicated his _First Fruites_ to the Earl of Leicester, his dedication being dated "From my lodgings in Worcester Place." In 1580 he dedicated a translation from the Italian of Ramusio to Edward Bray, sheriff of Oxford, and two years later dedicated to Sir Edmund Dyer a MS. collection of Italian proverbs, which is also dated from Oxford on the 12th of November 1582.

Nothing definite is known concerning Florio between 1582 and 1591; in the latter year he published his _Second Fruites_, dedicating it to a recent patron, Mr. Nicholas Saunder of Ewell. Between about 1590 and 1591, and the end of 1598 and possibly later, he continued in the pay and patronage of the Earl of Southampton, dedicating his _Worlde of Wordes_ in the latter year "To the Right Honourable Patrons of Virtue, Patterns of Honour, Roger, Earl of Rutland; Henry, Earl of Southampton; and Lucy, Countess of Bedford." A new and enlarged edition of this book containing his portrait was published in 1611. In the medallion surrounding this picture he gives his age as fifty-eight, which would date his birth in 1553, the year of Queen Mary's accession. It is probable that Florio understated his age, as he is said to have received his early education in France and to have returned to England with his father upon the accession of Elizabeth in 1558. Anthony Wood gives the date of his birth as 1545, and though I cannot find his authority am inclined to believe the earlier date to be correct. Florio was vain enough to prevaricate on a matter of this nature. In 1603 he published his chief work, a translation of _The Essaies of Montaigne_. Florio was attached to the Court of James I. as French and Italian tutor to Prince Henry and the Queen, and also held the appointment of Gentleman of the Privy Chamber.

Florio was married on 9th September 1617 to a Rose Spicer, of whom nothing earlier than the marriage record is known. From the facts that his daughter Aurelia was already married at the time of his death in 1625, and that in his will he leaves her "the wedding ring wherewith I married her mother," it is evident that Rose Spicer was his second wife.

Following a suggestion made by the Rev. J.H. Halpin, it is supposed that his first wife was a Rose Daniel, a sister of Samuel Daniel, the poet, who was Florio's cla.s.sfellow at Oxford. In the address to dedicatory verses by Daniel, prefixed to the 1611 edition of Florio's _Worlde of Wordes_ he calls Florio "My dear friend and brother, Mr. John Florio, one of the gentlemen of Her Majesties Royal Privy Chamber." From this it has been supposed that Florio's first wife was Daniel's sister, and Mr.

Halpin inferred that she was named Rose from his a.s.sumption that Spenser refers to her as Rosalinde, and to Florio as Menalcas in _The Shepheards Calendar_ in 1579. Mr. Grosart, who carefully investigated the matter, states that Daniel--who in 1611 was also a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber--had only two sisters, neither of them being named Rose. It is likely, then, that Daniel referred to his official connection with Florio by the term "brother," as in 1603, in a similar address to dedicatory verses prefixed to _Montaigne's Essaies_ he refers to him only as "My Friend." There is no record of Florio's first marriage.

It is very unlikely, however, that two women named Rose should have come so intimately into Florio's life, and probable, when all the evidence is considered, that Rose Spicer, the "dear wife Rose" mentioned in his will, was the "Rosalinde" of his youth, whom, it appears, he had seduced, and with whom he had evidently lived in concubinage in the intervening years; making tardy amends by marriage in 1617, only eight years before his death. His marriage to Rose Spicer was evidently brought about by the admonitions of his friend Theophilus Field, Bishop of Llandaff, under whose influence Florio became religious in his declining years.

In Florio's will, in which he bequeaths nearly all of his small property to his "beloved wife Rose," he regrets that he "cannot give or leave her more in requital of her tender love, loving care, painful diligence, and _continual labour to me in all my fortunes and many sicknesses_, than whom never had husband a more loving wife, painful nurse, and comfortable consort." The words I have italicised indicate conjugal relations covering a much longer period than the eight years between his formal marriage in 1617 and his death in 1625. The term "_all my fortunes_" certainly implies a connection between them antedating Florio's sixty-fourth year.

We may infer that the Bishop of Llandaff and Florio's pastor, Dr. Cluet, whom he appointed overseers and executors of his will, held Florio in light esteem, as "for certain reasons" they renounced its execution. The Earl of Pembroke, to whom he bequeathed his books, apparently neglected to avail himself of the legacy, and probably for the same reasons. An examination of Florio's characteristic will--in the Appendix--will suggest the nature of these reasons.

Mr. Halpin's inference that Florio as Menalcas had already married "Rosalinde" in 1596, when the last books of _The Faerie Queen_ were published, is deduced from the idea that the originals for "Mirabella"

and the "Carle and fool" of the _The Faerie Queen_ are identical with those for "Rosalinde" and "Menalcas" of _The Shepheards Calendar_. While it is probable that Spenser had the same originals in mind in both cases, an a.n.a.lysis of his verses in _The Faerie Queen_ shows that the "Carle and fool," who accompany Mirabella, represent two persons, _i.e._ "Disdaine" and "Scorne." In the following verses Mirabella speaks:

"In prime of youthly yeares, when first the flowre Of beauty gan to bud, and bloosme delight, And Nature me endu'd with plenteous dowre Of all her gifts, that pleased each living sight, I was belov'd of many a gentle Knight, And sude and sought with all the service dew: Full many a one for me deepe groand and sight, And to the dore of death for sorrow drew, Complayning _out on me_ that would not on them rew.

But let them love that list, or live or die, Me list not die for any lovers doole; Ne list me leave my loved libertie To pitty him that list to play the foole; To love myselfe I learned had in schoole.

Thus I triumphed long in lovers paine.

And sitting carelesse on the scorners stoole, Did laugh at those that did lament and plaine; But all is now repayd with interest againe.

For loe! the winged G.o.d that woundeth harts Causde me be called to accompt therefore; And for revengement of those wrongfull smarts, Which I to others did inflict afore, Addeem'd me to endure this penaunce sore; _That in this wise, and this unmeete array, With these two lewd companions, and no more, Disdaine and Scorne, I through the world should stray._"

a.s.suming "Mirabella" and "Rosalinde" to indicate the same woman, _i.e._ Rose Spicer, whom Florio married in 1617, but with whom he had been living in concubinage for about eighteen years when the last three books of _The Faerie Queen_ were published, Mirabella's penance of being forced to "stray through the world" accompanied by "Disdaine" and "Scorne," would match her plight as Florio's mistress, but would not apply to her as his wife.

The Rosalinde indicated by Spenser was undoubtedly a north of England girl, while Samuel Daniel belonged to a Somerset family. While it is certain that Florio was married before 1617, it is evident he did not marry a Miss Daniel, and that Menalcas had not married Rosalinde in 1596; yet it is practically certain that Spenser refers to Florio as Menalcas, and that Shakespeare recognised that fact in 1592 and pilloried Florio to the initiated of his day as Parolles in _Love's Labour's Won_ in this connection. Florio habitually signed himself "Resolute John Florio" to acquaintances, obligations, dedications, etc.

When he commenced this practice I cannot learn, but the use of the word was known to Spenser in 1579, as the Greek word Menalcas means Resolute.

It is not difficult to fathom Spenser's meaning in regard to the relations between Menalcas and Rosalinde, and it is clear that he had a poor opinion of the moral character of the former, and plainly charges him with seduction.

"And thou, Menalcas, that by treacheree Didst underfong my la.s.se to waxe so light, Shouldest well be known for such thy villanee.

But since I am not as I wish I were, Ye gentle Shepheards, which your flocks do feede, Whether on hylls, or dales, or other where, Beare witnesse all of thys so wicked deede: And tell the la.s.se, whose flowre is woxe a weede, And faultlesse fayth is turned to faithlesse fere, That she the truest shepheards hart made bleede, That lyves on earth, and loved her most dere."

The very unusual word "underfong" which Spenser uses in these verses, and the gloss which he appends to the verses of _The Shepheards Calendar_ for June, were not lost upon Shakespeare. Spenser, in the glossary, writes: "Menalcas, the name of a shephearde in Virgile; but here is meant a person unknowne and secrete, against whome he often bitterly invayeth. _Underfonge_, undermyne, and deceive by false suggestion." The immoral flippancy of the remarkable dialogue between the disreputable Parolles and the otherwise sweet and maidenly Helena, in Act I. Scene i. of _All's Well that Ends Well_, has often been noticed by critics as a peculiar lapse in dramatic congruity on the part of Shakespeare. This is evidently one of several such instances in his plays where he sacrificed his objective dramatic art to a subjective contingency, though by doing so undoubtedly adding a greater interest to contemporary presentations not only by the palpable reflection of Spenser's point at Florio in the play on the word "undermine" in a similar connection, but also as reflecting the wide lat.i.tude his Italianate breeding and manners and his Mediterranean unmorality allowed him and his type to take in conversing with English gentlewomen at that period.

The Rev. J.H. Halpin was not far from the truth in saying that "Florio was beset with tempers and oddities which exposed him more perhaps than any man of his time to the ridicule of his contemporaries"; and that "he was in his literary career, jealous, vain, irritable, pedantic, bombastical, petulant, and quarrelsome, ever on the watch for an affront, always in the att.i.tude of a fretful porcupine."

Florio became connected as tutor of languages with the Earl of Southampton some time before the end of April 1591, when he issued his _Second Fruites_ and dedicated it to his recent patron, Nicholas Saunder of Ewell. In this publication there is a pa.s.sage which not only exhibits the man's unblus.h.i.+ng effrontery, but also gives us a pa.s.sing glimpse of his early relations with his n.o.ble patron, the spirit of which Shakespeare reflects in Falstaff's impudent familiarity with Prince Hal.

This pa.s.sage serves also to show that at the time it was written, the last of April 1591, Florio had entered the pay and patronage of the Earl of Southampton. He introduces two characters as follows, and, with true Falstaffian a.s.surance, gives them his own and the Earl of Southampton's Christian names, Henry and John. Falstaff invariably addresses the Prince as Hal.