Scottish company of that year merely rests upon the presence of Fletcher's name in the patent of 1603, and this will not bear the strain of the argument.[1] Thus remains, however, the possibly autobiographical passage in Hamlet, ii. 2. 346, which assigns an 'inhibition by the means of the late innovation' as a cause of the travelling of players to Elsinore. The date of Hamlet may well be 1601, since the same passage refers to the theatrical competition set up by the establishment of boy companies at St. Paul's in 1599 and at the Chapel Royal in 1600. But it must be borne in mind that this competition is the only reason given for the travelling in the 1603 edition of the play. In the 1604 edition the only reason is the inhibition, while in the text of the 1623 Folio both reasons stand somewhat inconsistently side by side.[2] No doubt the text of 1603 is an imperfect piratical reprint. On the other hand that of 1604 almost certainly represents a revised version of the play, and the 'inhibition' cited, if it had an historical existence at all, may be that of 1603, during which certainly the company travelled. I suppose that 'innovation' might mean the accession of a new sovereign, although it does not seem a very obvious term. But then it does not seem a very obvious term for a seditious rising either.[3] On the whole, there is no reason to suppose that any serious blame was attached to the Chamberlain's men for lending themselves to Sir Gilly Meyrick's intrigue. It is certainly absurd to suggest, as has been suggested, that the 'adorned creature', whose ingratitude instigated the comparison between Elizabeth and Richard, was not Essex but Shakespeare.[4] At the same time the company may, of course, have been told to leave London for a few weeks. At some time, as the 1603 title-page tells us, they took Hamlet both to Oxford and to Cambridge, and it is at least tempting to find a reminiscence of the Cambridge visit in the scene from 2 Return from Parnassus cited below. It is possible that
- ↑ Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland).
- ↑ For the texts cf. ch. xi.
- ↑ W. H. Griffin in Academy for 25 April 1896, suggests that the 'innovation' of 1604 was the same as the 'noveltie' of 1603, i.e. the setting up of child actors. But I am afraid that this leaves 'inhibition' without a meaning.
- ↑ Nichols, Eliz. iii. 552, prints, perhaps from a manuscript of Lord De La Warr's (Hist. MSS. iv. 300), a note by W Lambarde of a conversation with the Queen on 4 Aug. 1601, 'Her Majestie fell upon the reign of King Richard II, saying, I am Richard II, know ye not that? W. L. Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a most unkind Gent. the most adorned creature that ever your Majestie made. Her Majestie. He that will forget God, will also forget his benefactors; this tragedy was played 40^{tie} times in open streets and houses'. The performances here referred to must have been in 1596-7, not 1601.
