Thomas Middleton[1] is seldom mentioned by his contemporaries; and to the scanty materials for his biography already collected by the curiosity of antiquarian writers, the facts which I have been enabled to add, though important, are unfortunately few.
His father was William Middleton; concerning whom I have found no earlier notice than is contained in the following document, which affords unquestionable evidence that he was a gentleman by birth:
“To all and singuler as well Noblez and gentlemen as others to whome these presentz shall coome I Sir Gilberte Dethicke knyghte alias Garter principall kinge of armes sende greatinge in owre Lord god euerlasting, Forasmuche as anncientlye from the begynninge the valiant and vertius actes of wourthie parsons haue ben commended to the world and posteretie with sondrie monumentz and remembrances of there good desearttes Emongst the which the chefiste and most vsuall hath ben the bearinge of signes and tokens in shildes called Armes which are euident demonstracions of prowez and valoure diuerslie distributed according to the qualities and wourthines of the parsons demereting the same which order as it was prudentlie devised in the beginnynge to stirre and kindle the harttes of men to the ymytacion of vertue and noblenes Euen so hathe the same ben and yet is contynnuallie obseruid to the [end] that suche as haue don commendable seruice to their prince or contrey eyther in warre or peace may bothe receiue due honor in their liues and also leaue the same successiuelie vnto there posteritie after them And wheras therfore William Midleton of in the Countie of [2] gentleman hathe ben of longe time one of the bearrers of these Armes That is to say Argent on a Saulteir engrailed sablez a Castle of the firste And for asmuch as I finde no Creaste therevnto belonging or appertayninge hath requested me the sayd Garter to assigne vnto his coot armoure such creaste or Cognissance as he may lawfullie vse and beare In consideracion wherof and for a further declaration of the wourthines of the sayd William I the sayd Garter kinge of Armes haue assigned vnto him this creast or cognissance folowinge That is to say on his Torce argent and sables a Ape passant with a coller about his necke and chaine golde mantelled argent double gules as more playnlie appeareth depicted in this margent Which Armes and Creast I the sayd Garter principall Kinge of Armes haue ratefied confermed assigned and allowed and by these presentes do ratefye confirme assigne and allow vnto the sayd William Mydleton and to his posteritie for ever and he and they to haue hould and enioy the same and therin to be revested att his and there libertie and pleasure without the lett ympediment or interruption of any other parson or parsons whatsoeuer In wittnes whereof I the sayd Garter haue signed these presentes with my hand and sett therevnto the seall of myne office and armes Dated the xxiiiᵗʰ of Aprill in the xᵗʰ yeare of the Raigne of our moste gracius soueraigne Ladie Elizabeth by the grace of godd of England France and Ireland Quene Defender of the fayth &c Anno 1560 [1568].”[3]
William Middleton appears to have settled in the metropolis.[4] He married[5] Anne, daughter of William Snow, of London; and by her had two children,—Thomas, the subject of the present memoir; and Avicia,[6] who first became the wife of John Empson, of London, and afterwards of Alan Waterer, of the same city.
The date of the poet’s birth, which is matter of conjecture,[7] I am inclined to fix not earlier than 1570.
It was probably about 1603 that he married Maria,[8] daughter of Edward Morbeck,[9] of London, one of the Six Clerks of Chancery, by Barbara, daughter of William Palmer, of Warwickshire. A son, named Edward, the only issue of this marriage, was alive in 1623, aged nineteen. If there be no error in the MS. from which the above information has been derived, and if the entry among the City Records, which is cited in another part of this memoir, be also correct, Middleton must have married a second time, either during 1623 or subsequently to that year, for, according to the latter authority, the name of his widow was Magdalen.
A “Tho. Middleton” was admitted member of Gray’s Inn in 1593, a second in 1596, and a third in 1606.[10] Of these individuals, the first is more likely than either of the others to have been the dramatist.
The Wisdom of Solomon Paraphrased, Written by Thomas Middleton, 1597, has generally been assigned to our author; and since no other poet of the same name is known to have existed in those days,[11] I have thought myself obliged, notwithstanding its length and tediousness, to reprint it entire. Micro-cynicon, Six Snarling Satires, 1599, has also been attributed to him, because the prefatory verses are subscribed “T. M. Gent.;” and as it possesses at least the doubtful merit of shortness, I have not rejected it from the present collection.[12]
But of whatever kind were his earliest (and perhaps unsuccessful) efforts to attract the notice of the public, it is evident that Middleton devoted the maturity of his powers almost exclusively to dramatic composition, though the period at which he commenced a writer for the stage cannot be determined. There are grounds for believing that The Old Law was first produced in 1599.[13] Of that play, a portion only is by him—a portion is by William Rowley; and subsequently it received improvements from the pen of Massinger, who when it was originally acted had not completed his fifteenth year. The reader ought to remember, that dramas which bear on their title-pages the names of more than one author were not necessarily written by those authors in conjunction: that popular playwrights were often employed to alter and to add to pieces which had ceased to be attractive, is a fact sufficiently established by the valuable memoranda of Henslowe. We are not, however, to conclude that the other dramas of which Middleton was only in part the author were wrought into their present form by such a process.
It is unnecessary to enumerate all the various pieces with which, during a long series of years, he continued to enrich the stage; nor would it be possible to ascertain the exact order in which they were produced. Henslowe’s papers supply the following notices of two which perhaps were never printed, and are no longer extant:
“May 1602. Two Harpies, by Dekker, Drayton, Middleton, Webster, and Mundy.”[14]
“Oct. 1602. Randall, earl of Chester, by T. Middleton.”[15]
And among the MS. plays which belonged to Warburton the Somerset Herald, and which, according to his own cool statement, “were unluckely burnd or put under Pye-bottoms,” there was one entitled “The Puritan Maid, the Modest Wife, and the Wanton Widow, by Tho. Middleton.”[16]
Two tracts, which issued separately from the press in 1604, The Black Book, and Father Hubburd’s Tales, or The Ant and the Nightingale, I assign, with little hesitation, to Middleton: in both the Epistle to the Reader is subscribed “T. M.,” and in both are found expressions which remind us strongly of his dramatic dialogue. They are coarse but humorous attacks on the vices and follies of the time; and are peculiarly interesting on account of the passages which relate to Thomas Nash,[17] of whose admirable prose-satires they may be considered as no unhappy imitations. The verses interwoven with Father Hubburd’s Tales are occasionally very graceful.
The Inner Temple Masque, written, I apprehend, in 1618, and The World tost at Tennis, first produced as a royal entertainment, and afterwards brought out with alterations, probably in 1620, are the only pieces of the kind which we possess from our author’s pen; but it appears, by an entry in the City Records, that he had been called on at an earlier date to compose a masque, of which the title alone remains:
| “Martis xviii die Januarii 1613 Anno R.Rs Jacobi Angliæ &c. undecimo. | ||
| Middleton Mayor. Rep. No. 31. (Part Sec.) fol. 239.ᵇ |
Item: it is ordered by this Court that Thomas Middleton Gent. shalbe forthwith allowed upon his Bill of particulers such recompence and chardges as the Committees lately appointed for the ordering of the late Solempnities at Marchauntailors Hall shall thinck meete for all his disbursements and paynes taken by him and others in the last Mask of Cupid and other Shewes lately made at the aforesaid Hall by the said Mʳ Middleton.” | |
The “solempnities” in question had been occasioned by the recent nuptials of that infamous pair the Earl and Countess of Somerset, and are thus described by Howes: “Vpon Tewsday the 4. of January [1613-14], the Bride and Bridegroome, being accompanied with the duke of Lenox, the Lord priuie Seale, the lord Chamberlayne, the earles of Worcester, Pembroke, Mountgomery, and others, and with many honorable Barons, knights, and gentlemen of qualitie, came to marchant-taylers hall, where the Lord Maior and Aldermenne of London, in their Scarlet robes, entertayned them with hearty welcome, and feasted them with all magnificence: at their first entrance into the hall, they were receiued with ingenious speeches and pleasant melody: at this princely feast all the meate was serued to the Table by choyse cittizens of comeliest personage, in their gownes of rich Foynes, selected out of the 12. honorable companies: after supper, and being risen from the Table, these noble guests were entertayned with a Wassaile, 2. seuerall pleasant maskes, and a play, and with other pleasant dances, all which being ended, then the Bride and Bridegroome with all the rest were inuited to a princely banquet, and about 3. a clock in the morning they returned to Whitehall.”[18]
Middleton’s earliest[19] pageant was produced in 1613; and his ingenuity was again taxed to devise fantastic shows for the amusement of the populace in 1616, 1617, and 1619.
Among the expenses of the pageant for 1617, The Triumphs of Honour and Industry,[20] which have been printed from the accounts of the Wardens of the Grocers’ Company, are the following entries:
| £. | s. | d. | |
| “Payde to Thomas Middleton, gent. for the ordering, over seeing and writyng of the whole devyse, for the making of the Pageant of Nations, the Iland, the Indian Chariot, the Castle of Fame, trymming the Shipp, with all the several beastes which drew them, and for all the carpenter’s work, paynting, guylding and garnyshing of them, with all other things necessary for the apparelling and finding of all the personages in the sayd shewes, and for all the portage and carryage, both by land and by water, for the lighters for the shew by water, for paynting of a banner of the Lord Mayor’s armes, and also in full for the greenmen, dyvells and fyer works with all thinges thereunto belonging according to his agreement, the some of | 282 | 0 | 0 |
| “Payde to Nicholas Oaks, stationer, for the printyng of 500 bookes, the some of | 4 | 0 | 0”[21] |
Partly, perhaps, in consequence of the satisfaction afforded by these and other performances, he was appointed, in 1620, Chronologer to the City of London, and Inventor of its “honourable entertainments.” Such, at least, is the date of his election according to the authority cited below[22] by Oldys; and in the extracts from the City Records with which I have been furnished, I find no mention of his having held the office anterior to that year:
| “Martis vicesimo tertio die Januarii 1620 Annoque R.R. Jacobi Angliæ &c decimo octavo. | ||
| Jhones Mayor. Rep. No. 35. f. 76. | Item: this day uppon consideracion taken by this Court of the peticion of Thomas Middleton Gentⁿ this Court is well pleased to order that his yearely fee of sixe poundes thirteene shillings and foure pence payable out of the Chamber of London shall from henceforth be encreased to Tenne poundes per annum duringe the pleasure of this Court And the first quarters payment to be made at our Ladye daye next.” | |
| “Martis decimo septimo die Aprilis 1621 Annoque Regni Regis Jacobi Angliæ &c decimo nono. | ||
| Jhones Mayor. Rep. No. 35. f. 148. | Item: this day uppon the humble peticion of Thomas Middleton Chronologer and Inventor of the hoᵇˡᵉ entertainments of this Citty this Court is pleased for and towardes his expences in the performances thereof to graunt unto him the nominacion and benefitt of one persone to be made free of this Citty by redempcion, the same persone beinge first presented and allowed of by this Court, and to be one of the nomber of ten to be now made free at this Easter and payinge to Mr. Chamberlen to the Citties use the some of sixe shillings and eight pence.” | |
| “Martis decimo septimo die Septembris 1622 Annoque R. Regis Jacobi &c vicesimo. | ||
| Barkham Mayor. Rep. No. 36. f. 249. | Item: this day uppon the humble peticion of Thomas Middleton the Cittyes Chronologer This Courte is pleased for his better incouragement to order that Mr. Chamberlen shall pay unto him the some of fifteene poundes as of the guifte of this Courte.” | |
| “Jovis sexto die Februarii 1622 Annoque R.Rs Jacobi Angliæ &c vicesimo. | ||
| Proby Mayor. Rep. No. 37. f. 95. | Item: this day uppon the humble peticion of Thomas Middleton the Citties Chronologer this Court is pleased to take into their consideracion the services of the saide peticioner expressed in his peticion and thereupon to order that Mr. Chamberlen shall pay unto him the some of Twenty poundes as of the guifte of this Court.” | |
| “Jovis vicesimo quarto die Aprilis 1623 Annoque R.Rs Jacobi Angliæ &c vicesimo primo. | ||
| Proby Mayor. Rep. N. 37. f. 151.b | Item: this daye upon the humble peticion of Thomas Middleton the Citties Chronologer and for his better incouragement to doe his best service to this Cittye this Court of theire especial favour doth graunt unto him the nominacion and benefit of one person to bee made free of this Cittie by redempcion the same beinge first presented and allowed of by this Court and payinge to Mr. Chamberlen to the Citties use the some of vis. viiid. | |
| “Martis secundo die Septembris 1623 Annoque R.Rs Jacobi Angliæ &c xxio. | ||
| Proby Mayor. Rep. No. 37. f. 240. | Item: this daie upon the humble peticion of Thomas Middleton gent. the Citties Chronologer this Court vouchsaved to order that Mr. Chamberlen shall paie unto him the some of Twentie Markes of the guifte of this Court for and towardes the charges of the service latelie performed by him att the shuting at Bunhill before the Lord Maior and Aldermen and for his service to be performed att the Conduitt heades.” | |
With the representation of A Game at Chess in 1624 is connected the most memorable incident of our poet’s history. In this singular drama he ventured to bring upon the stage both the English and the Spanish court; much of the satire being levelled at Gondomar, who is unmercifully held up to ridicule not only for his political intrigues, but even for his bodily infirmities. “Prince Charles,” says Mr. Collier, “returned from Spain, after the breaking off the match with the Infanta, late in the autumn of 1623; and to take advantage of the popular feeling upon this question, Middleton’s play was probably written in the succeeding spring, and certainly acted at the Globe in the summer.”[23] A Game at Chess could hardly fail to prove attractive; and it had already been performed (as the 4tos state) “for nine days together,” when the exhibition was suddenly prohibited by a royal mandate, and both the author and the actors were cited before the Privy Council. A detail of the proceedings in this curious affair is supplied by the following letters.
Mr. Secretary Conway to the Privy Council:
“May it please your Lordships,—His Majesty hath received information from the Spanish Ambassador of a very scandalous comedy acted publickly by the King’s players, wherein they take the boldness and presumption, in a rude and dishonourable fashion, to represent on the stage the persons of his Majesty, the King of Spain, the Conde de Gondomar, the Bishop of Spalato, &c. His Majesty remembers well there was a commandment and restraint given against the representing of any modern Christian kings in those stage-plays; and wonders much both at the boldness now taken by that company, and also that it hath been permitted to be so acted, and that the first notice thereof should be brought to him by a foreign ambassador, while so many ministers of his own are thereabouts, and cannot but have heard of it. His Majesty’s pleasure is, that your Lordships presently call before you as well the poet that made the comedy as the comedians that acted it: And upon examination of them to commit them, or such of them as you shall find most faulty, unto prison, if you find cause, or otherwise take security for their forthcoming; and then certify his Majesty what you find that comedy to be, in what points it is most offensive, by whom it was made, by whom licensed, and what course you think fittest to be held for the examplary and severe punishment of the present offenders, and to restrain such insolent and licentious presumption for the future. This is the charge I have received from his Majesty, and with it I make bold to offer to your Lordships the humble service of, &c. From Rufford, August 12th, 1624.”
The Privy Council to Mr. Secretary Conway:
“After our hearty commendations, &c.—According to his Majesty’s pleasure signified to this board by your letter of the 12th August, touching the suppressing of a scandalous comedy acted by the King’s players, we have called before us some of the principal actors and demanded of them by what license and authority they have presumed to act the same; in answer whereto they produced a book being an original and perfect copy thereof (as they affirmed) seen and allowed by Sir Henry Herbert Knᵗ, Master of the Revels, under his own hand, and subscribed in the last page of the said book: We demanding further, whether there were not other parts or passages represented on the stage than those expressly contained in the book, they confidently protested, they added or varied from the same nothing at all. The poet, they tell us, is one Middleton, who shifting out of the way, and not attending the board with the rest, as was expected, we have given warrant to a messenger for the apprehending of him. To those that were before us we gave a sound and sharp reproof, making them sensible of his Majesty’s high displeasure herein, giving them straight charge and commands that they presumed not to act the said comedy any more, nor that they suffered any play or interlude whatsoever to be acted by them or any of their company until his Majesty’s pleasure be further known. We have caused them likewise to enter into bond for their attendance upon the board whensoever they shall be called. As for our certifying to his Majesty (as was intimated by your letter) what passages in the said comedy we should find to be offensive and scandalous; We have thought it our duties for his Majesty’s clearer information to send herewithal the book itself subscribed as aforesaid by the Master of the Revels, that so either yourself or some other whom his Majesty shall appoint to peruse the same, may see the passages themselves out of the original, and call Sir Henry Herbert before you to know a reason of his licensing thereof, who (as we are given to understand) is now attending at court; So having done as much as we conceived agreeable with our duties in conformity to his Majesty’s royal commandments, and that which we hope shall give him full satisfaction, we shall continue our humble prayers to Almighty God for his health and safety; and bid you very heartily farewell. [Dated the 21st of August, 1624.]”
Mr. Secretary Conway to the Privy Council:
“Right Honourable,—His Majesty having received satisfaction in your Lordships’ endeavours, and in the signification thereof to him by yours of the 21st of this present, hath commanded me to signify the same to you. And to add further, that his pleasure is, that your Lordships examine by whose direction and application the personating of Gondomar and others was done; and that being found out, the party or parties to be severely punished, his Majesty being unwilling for one’s sake and only fault to punish the innocent or utterly to ruin the company. The discovery on what party his Majesty’s justice is properly and duly to fall, and your execution of it and the account to be returned thereof, his Majesty leaves to your Lordships’ wisdoms and care. And this being that I have in charge, continuing the humble offer of my service and duty to the attendance of your commandments, &c. From Woodstock, the 27th August, 1624.”
The preceding correspondence was originally printed by the late George Chalmers:[24] the following “Letter to the Lords of the Counsell from my Lord Chamberlain about the Players,” indorsed “27 August 1624,” is now for the first time published.[25]
“To the right honᵇˡᵉ my very good Lord, the Lord Viscount Maundeville, Lord President of his Majesty’s most honᵇˡᵉ Privy Counsell, theis.
My very good Lord
Complaynt being made unto his Majesty against the Company of his Comedians, for acting publiquely a Play knowne by the name of a Game at Chesse, contayning some passages in it reflecting in matter of scorne and ignominy upon the King of Spaine, some of his Ministers and others of good note and quality, his Majesty out of the tender regard hee had of that King’s honor and those of his Ministers who were conceived to bee wounded thereby, caused his letters to bee addressed to my Lords and the rest of his most honᵇˡᵉ Privy Council, thereby requiring them to convent those his Comedians before them, and to take such course with them for this offence as might give best satisfaction to the Spanish Ambassador and to their owne Honnors. After examination that honᵇˡᵉ Board thought fitt not onely to interdict them playing of that play, but of any other also, untill his Majesty should give way unto them. And for their obedience hereunto they weare bound in 300li bondes. Which punishment when they had suffered (as his Majesty conceives) a competent tyme, upon their petition delivered heere unto him, it pleased his Majesty to comaund mee to lett your Lordship understand (which I pray your Lordship to impart to the rest of that honᵇˡᵉ Board) that his Majesty now conceives the punishment, if not satisfactory for that their insolency, yet such as since it stopps the current of their poore livelyhood and mainteanance, without much prejudice they cannot longer undergoe. In consideration therefore of those his poore servants, his Majesty would have their Lordships connive at any common play lycensed by authority, that they shall act as before. As for this of the Game at Chesse, that it bee not onely antiquated and sylenced, but the Players bound as formerly they weare, and in that point onely never to act it agayne. Yet nothwithstanding that my Lords proceed in their disquisition to fynd out the originall roote of this offence, whether it sprang from the Poet, Players, or both, and to certefy his Majesty accordingly. And so desireing your Lordship to take this into your consideration, and them into your care, I rest
An entry in the Council-register of the 30th August, 1624, declares: “This day Edward [Thomas] Middleton of London, gent. being formerly sent for by warrant from this board, tendred his appearance, wherefor his indemnitie is here entered into the register of counceil causes: nevertheless he is enjoyned to attend the board till he be discharged by order of their Lordships.”[26]
A copy of A Game at Chess, which formerly belonged to Major Pearson, contains, in an old hand, the following memorandum:[27]
“After nyne dayse wherein I have heard some of the acters say they tooke fiveteene hundred Pounde the Spanish faction being prevalent gott it supprest the chiefe actors and the Poett Mr. Thomas Middleton that writt it committed to prisson where hee lay some Tyme and at last gott oute upon this petition presented to King James
The writer is doubtless mistaken as to the amount of money received at the doors of the theatre.[28] What he states concerning the imprisonment of Middleton, &c. seems to be disproved by the authentic documents already given; and Mr. Collier (who has not noticed the latter part of the memorandum) remarks, that “the reason why no punishment [except the interdiction from acting] was inflicted, either upon the players or poet, was perhaps that they had acted the piece under the authority of the Master of the Revels.”[29]
In a letter by Howel from Madrid, addressed to Sir John North, there is an evident allusion to Middleton’s notorious drama: “I am sorry to hear how other Nations do much tax the English of their Incivility to public Ministers of State; and what Ballads and Pasquils and Fopperies and Plays were made against Gondamar for doing his Masters business.”[30] And in The Staple of News, by Ben Jonson, acted 1625, may be found a humorous but rather gross passage about Gondomar and “the poor English play was writ of him.”[31]
The Triumphs of Health and Prosperity, 1626, was the last piece composed by Middleton for the entertainment of the city; and it was also, perhaps, the last effort of his pen.
That in 1623 he resided at Newington Butts,[32] has been already shewn; and that there he died, is proved by an entry which I now cite from the Register of the parish-church;
The following lines have been frequently adduced as a testimony that our author was far advanced in years at the time of his decease; but I have little doubt that they are the invention of Chetwood, who on other occasions is known to have been a most expert and impudent forger:
Middleton appears to have left no will; nor is it likely that he had any property to bequeath, since, some months after his death, a petition for pecuniary assistance was addressed by his widow to the City:
| “Jovis septimo die Februarii 1627 [-8] Anno RRs Caroli Angliæ &c. tertio. | ||
| Hamersly Mayor. Rep. No. 42. f. 89. |
Item: this daie upon the humble peticion of Magdalen[34] Middleton Widdowe late Wife of Thomas Middleton deceased late Chronologer of this Cittie it is ordered by this Court that Mr. Chamberlen shall paie unto her as of the guifte of this Court the some of Twentie Nobles.”[35] | |
The Register above cited contains an entry which in all probability refers to her:
Concerning the poet’s son Edward, who, as we have seen[36] was aged nineteen in 1623, I have not succeeded in obtaining any further particulars.
The portrait of Middleton (without the engraver’s name) prefixed to Two New Playes, 1657, and copied for the present work, is the only one extant; but whether it conveys a true idea of his personal appearance, cannot be determined.
Malone informs us, that “Drayton has commended Middleton;”[37] and though I have searched in vain for the eulogy to which he alludes, it may nevertheless exist. I shall here throw together the few notices of our author by his contemporaries which I have been able to collect.
In Howes’s Continuation of Stow’s Annales, 1615, he is included in a list of the Elizabethan poets, which, because I do not remember to have seen it formerly quoted, I subjoin entire:
“Our moderne and present excellent Poets which worthely florish in their owne workes, and all of them in my owne knowledge liued togeather in this Queenes raigne, according to their priorities as neere as I could, I haue orderly set downe (viz.) George Gascoigne Esquire, Thomas Church-yard Esquire, sir Edward Dyer knight, Edmond Spencer Esquire, sir Philip Sidney knight, Sir John Harrington knight, Sir Thomas Challoner knight, Sir Frauncis Bacon knight, and Sir John Dauie[s] knight, Master John Lillie gentleman, Maister George Chapman gentleman, M. W. Warner gentleman, M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman, Samuell Daniell Esquire, Michaell Draiton Esquire, of the bath, M. Christopher Marlo gen. M. Beniamine Johnson gentleman, John Marston Esquier, M. Abraham Frauncis [Fraunce] gen. master Frauncis Meers gentle. master Josua Siluester gentle. master Thomas Deckers gentleman, M. John Flecher gentle. M. John Webster gentleman, M. Thomas Heywood gentleman, M. Thomas Middelton gentleman, M. George Withers. These following were Latine Poets. Master Gaulter Hadon gentleman, Master Nicholas Carr gentleman, M. Christopher Ocland gentle. Mathew Gwynn doctor of Phisicke, Thomas Lodge doctor of phisike, M. Tho. Watson gentle. Thomas Campion doctor of Phisicke, Richard Lateware doctor of diuinitie, M. Brunswerd gentleman, Master doctor Haruie, and master Willey gentleman.”[38]
In the record of Jonson’s “Conversations at Hawthornden in 1619,” our poet is thus contemptuously mentioned: “That Markam (who added his English Arcadia) was not of the number of the Faithfull, i. e. Poets, and but a base fellow. That such were Day and Middleton.”[39] There can be no doubt that Ben was strongly possessed by the humour of disparaging, when he chose to couple Middleton with writers so inferior.
In The Praise of Hempseed, 1620, by Taylor the water-poet, these lines occur:
In The Hierarchie of the blessed Angels, 1635, by Heywood, there is a curious passage concerning the disrespectful curtailment of the baptismal names of modern poets, which will probably be new to many readers:
I may add, that in a work of later date, Wit’s Recreations, is the following “epigram:”[42]
Three of our author’s pieces are recorded to have been performed after the Restoration, A Trick to catch the Old One, The Widow, and The Changeling; but at the commencement of the eighteenth century his writings may be considered as forgotten.
The publication of Dodsley’s Old Plays[43] in 1744 had some effect in reviving the faded reputation of Middleton; and in 1778 his name was made still more familiar to the literary world, when copies of The Witch, printed from a MS. in the possession of Major Pearson,[44] were circulated by Isaac Reed. Besides the less important discovery that D’Avenant had availed himself of this drama in his alteration of Macbeth,[45] it was evident that the resemblance between the scenes of enchantment in The Witch, and those in Shakespeare’s tragedy as originally written, must have been more than accidental. Steevens maintained that Shakespeare was the imitator. Malone at first coincided in that opinion; but receding from it at a later period of life, he endeavoured to establish by a lengthy dissertation that the performance of Macbeth (which he fixes in 1606[46]), was anterior to that of The Witch; and though his reasoning appears to me very far from convincing, I am by no means disposed to assert that the conclusion at which he has so laboriously arrived is not the right one.[47] Gifford, indeed, has unhesitatingly pronounced that Shakespeare was the copyist;[48] but, notwithstanding the respect which I entertain for that critic, his incidental remarks on the present question have little weight with me: he has assigned no grounds for his decision; he had not, I apprehend, considered the subject with much attention; and on two occasions at least, he appears to have alluded to it chiefly for the sake of giving additional force to the blows which he happened to be aiming at the luckless “commentators.” As Shakespeare undoubtedly possessed the creative power in its utmost perfection, and as no satisfactory evidence has been adduced to shew that The Witch was acted at an earlier period than Macbeth, he must not be hastily accused of imitation. Yet since he is known to have frequently remodelled the works of other writers, it may be urged, that when he had to introduce witches into his tragedy, he would hardly scruple to borrow from our author’s play[49] as much as suited his immediate purpose. But, after all, there is an essential difference[50] between the hags of Shakespeare and of Middleton; and whichever of the two may have been the copyist, he owes so little to his brother-poet, that the debt will not materially affect his claim to originality. Concerning the tragi-comedy The Witch, I have only to add, that its merit consists entirely in the highly imaginative pictures of the preternatural agents, in their incantations, and their moonlight revelry: the rest of it rises little above mediocrity.
In the estimation of an anonymous critic, Women beware Women is “Middleton’s finest play,”[51] and perhaps he has judged rightly. It is indeed remarkable for the masterly conception and delineation of the chief characters, and for the life and reality infused into many of the scenes; though the dramatis personæ are almost all repulsive from their extreme depravity, and the catastrophe is rather forced and unnatural. In this tragedy, says Hazlitt, there is “a rich marrowy vein of internal sentiment, with fine occasional insight into human nature, and cool cutting irony of expression.”[52] To his subsequent observation, that “the interest decreases, instead of increasing, as we read on,” I by no means assent.
The Changeling affords another specimen of Middleton’s tragic powers. If on the whole inferior to the piece last mentioned, it displays, I think, in several places, a depth of passion unequalled throughout the present volumes. According to the title-page, William Rowley, who was frequently his literary associate, had a share in the composition; but I feel convinced that the terribly impressive passages of this tragedy, as well as those serious portions of A Fair Quarrel which Lamb has deservedly praised, and the pleasing characters of Clara and Constanza in The Spanish Gipsy, are beyond the ability of Rowley.
Among our author’s works there are few more original and ingenious than A Game at Chess. By touches of sweet fancy, by quaint humour, and by poignant satire, he redeems the startling absurdities in which the plan of the drama had necessarily involved him.
Middleton’s “principal efforts,” says an accomplished writer, “were in comedy, where he deals profusely in grossness and buffoonery. The cheats and debaucheries of the town are his favourite sources of comic intrigue.”[53] A Mad World, my Masters, and A Trick to catch the Old One, are the most perfect of the numerous comedies which Mr. Campbell has dismissed with so slight and unfavourable a notice; and next to them may be ranked The Roaring Girl,[54] A Chaste Maid in Cheapside, Michaelmas Term, and No Wit, no Help like a Woman’s. The dialogue of these pieces is generally spirited; the characters, though their peculiarities may be sometimes exaggerated, are drawn with breadth and discrimination; and the crowded incidents afford so much amusement, that the reader is willing to overlook the occasional violation of probability. As they faithfully reflect the manners and customs of the age, even the worst of Middleton’s comedies[55] are not without their value.
A critic, whom I have already quoted, after observing that “it is difficult to assign Middleton any precise station among the remarkable men who were his contemporaries,”[56] proceeds to compare him with Webster and Ford, who were assuredly poets of a higher order. The dramatists with whom, in my opinion, Middleton ought properly to be classed—though superior to him in some respects and inferior in others—are Dekker, Heywood, Marston, and Chapman: nor perhaps does William Rowley fall so much below them that he should be excluded from the list.