"I am a spirit of no common rate;The summer still doth tend upon my state,And I do love thee"—
"I am a spirit of no common rate;The summer still doth tend upon my state,And I do love thee"—
"I am a spirit of no common rate;The summer still doth tend upon my state,And I do love thee"—
"I am a spirit of no common rate;
The summer still doth tend upon my state,
And I do love thee"—
are so closely like those in Nash'sSummer's Last Will, where Summer says—
"Died I had indeed unto the earth,But that Eliza, England's beauteous Queen,On whom all seasons prosperously attend,Forbad the execution of my fateUntil her joyful progress was expired"—
"Died I had indeed unto the earth,But that Eliza, England's beauteous Queen,On whom all seasons prosperously attend,Forbad the execution of my fateUntil her joyful progress was expired"—
"Died I had indeed unto the earth,But that Eliza, England's beauteous Queen,On whom all seasons prosperously attend,Forbad the execution of my fateUntil her joyful progress was expired"—
"Died I had indeed unto the earth,
But that Eliza, England's beauteous Queen,
On whom all seasons prosperously attend,
Forbad the execution of my fate
Until her joyful progress was expired"—
that I think they are alluded to by Shakespeare. The singularly fine summer of 1592 is attributed to the influence of Elizabeth, the Fairy Queen. Nash's play was performed at the Archbishop's palace at Croydon in Michaelmas term of the same year by a "number of hammer-handed clowns (for so it pleaseth them in modesty to name themselves);" but I believe the company originally satirised in Shakespeare's play was the Earl of Sussex', Bottom, the chief clown, being intended for Robert Greene. Thus much for date of production. For the title of the play, compare the conclusion ofThe Taming of a Shrewand Peele'sOld Wife's Tale, the latter of which is performed in a dream, and the former is supposed by Sly to be so; the interpretation that it means a play performed at midsummer is quite inconsistent with iv. 1. 190, &c., and other passages. The names of the personages are interesting, because they show us what books Shakespeare was reading at this time: from North'sPlutarch, Life of Theseus, the first in the book, he got Periginia (Perigouna), Aegles, Ariadne, Antiope, and Hippolita; fromChaucer'sKnight's Tale, also the first in the printed editions, which he afterwards dramatised, Philostrate; from Greene'sJames IV.Oberon. This last name, with Titania's, also occurs in the Queen'sEntertainmentat Lord Hertford's, 1591. The time-analysis of this play has probably been disturbed by omissions in producing the Court version. I. 1. 128-251 ought to form, and probably did, in the original play, a separate scene; it certainly does not take place in the palace. To the same cause must be attributed the confusion as to the moon's age; cf. i. 1. 209 with the opening lines: the new moon was an afterthought, and evidently derived from a form of the story in which the first day of the month and the new moon were coincident after the Greek time-reckoning. It is worth notice that not only is the title of Preston'sCambysesparodied in the Pyramus interlude, but his pension of sixpence a day is ridiculed in iv. 2. Nor must we quite pass over the fact, which confirms the 1595 date, that on 30th August 1594, at the baptism of Prince Henry (of Scotland), the tame lion which was to have been brought in in the triumph was replaced by a Moor, "because his presence might have brought some fear." The play is nearly as much an error play (iii. 2. 368) as theErrorsitself, and, like it, has no knownimmediate source for the plot. The Pyramus interlude is clearly based on C. Robinson'sHandfull of Pleasant Delights(1584); and some of the fairy story may have been suggested by Montemayor'sDiana. The line ii. 2. 104, is from Peele'sEdward I.(near end), "how nature strove in them to show her art," and I think the man who dares not come in the moon because it is in snuff may allude to the offence given at Court by Lyly'sEndymionin 1588. An absolute downward limit of date is given by a line imitated inDoctor Doddypol, a play alluded to in 1596 by Nash, and spoiled in the imitation—
"Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl,Which shook together by the silken windOf their loose mantles made a silver chime."
"Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl,Which shook together by the silken windOf their loose mantles made a silver chime."
"Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl,Which shook together by the silken windOf their loose mantles made a silver chime."
"Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl,
Which shook together by the silken wind
Of their loose mantles made a silver chime."
This solidification of the dewdrops does not occur in the Shakespeare parallel, ii. 1. 15. Mr. Halliwell's fancy that Spenser's line inFairy Queen, vi.—"Through hills and dales, through bushes and through briers" must have been imitated by Shakespeare in ii. 1. 2, is very flimsy; hill and dale, bush and brier, are commonplaces of the time. Nor is there any proof that this song could not have been transmitted to Ireland in 1593 or 1594.
1595.
Richard II.cannot be definitely dated by external evidence, but all competent critics agree that it is the earliest of Shakespeare's historical plays; the question of authorship, &c., ofRichard III.being reserved for the present. It is a tragedy like Marlowe'sEdward II., not a "life and death" history. TheCivil Warsof Daniel, from which Shakespeare seems to have derived a few hints, was entered on S. R. 11th October 1594. The play probably was produced after this date, and before the publication of the Pope's bull in 1596, inciting the Queen's subjects to depose her. In consequence of this bull the abdication scene was omitted in representation, and in the editions during Elizabeth's lifetime. In like manner, Hayward was imprisoned for publishing in 1599 hisHistory of the First Year of Henry IV., which is simply the story of Richard's abdication. The omitted scene was restored in 1608 under James I. as "new additions." Suchnewadditions on title-pages are often restorations of omitted passages. The Folio copy omits a few other speeches, the play having been evidently found too long in representation; but it contains the abdication scene. This being the first play of Shakespeare's that passed the press was carelesslycorrected, whence much apparently unShakespearian and halting metre, which is easily set right. The source of the plot is Holinshed'sChronicle; "the earlier play onRichard II.lately printed" (says Mr. Stokes in 1878) "I have not seen; but it concludes with the murder of the Duke of Gloster." The play seen at the Globe by Forman in 1611 began with the rebellion of Wat Tyler. It was not Shakespeare's. There is no prose in this play, inJohn, or theComedy of Errors; a sign of early work.
1595.
The Two Gentlemen of Veronais a striking instance of the difficulties in which we are involved if we attempt to assign a single date for the production of every play, and neglect the fact that alterations were and are continually made by authors in their works. Drake and Chalmers date this play in 1595; Gervinus, Delius, and Stokes 1591. Malone at different times adopted both dates. I believe that all these opinions are reconcilable, that the play was produced in 1591, with work by a second hand in it, which was cut out and replaced by Shakespeare's own in 1595. For a date after 1593 is distinctly indicated in the play as we have it by the allusions toHero and Leanderin i. 1. 21, iii. 1. 119; and to the pestilence in ii. 1. 20;a still closer approximation is shown to theMerchant of Venice, by the mistake of Padua for Milan in ii. 5. 2. If Shakespeare had not, at the time when he finally produced theTwo Gentlemen, begun his study for the Venetian story, whence this name? It only occurs there, once inMuch Ado, and in the non-Shakespearian parts ofThe Taming of the Shrew. In like manner the mistake of Verona for Milan in iii. 4. 81, v. 4. 129, indicates that he had been preparingRomeo and Juliet. That our play lies between theErrorsand theDreamon one hand andThe Merchanton the other, becomes pretty clear by comparing the development of character in the Dromios, Launce and Speed, Lancelot Gobbo; in Lucetta and Nerissa; in Demetrius and Lysander, Valentine and Proteus. Nor are marks of the twofold date wanting. In the first two acts we find Valentine at the Emperor's court, no Duke mentioned; in the last three at the Duke's, no Emperor mentioned. The turning-point is in ii. 4, where, though "Emperor" occurs in the text, "Duke" is used in the stage directions. In i. 1. 32, "If haply won perhaps a hapless gain; if lost, why then a grievous labour won," there is surely an allusion toLove's Labour's Won, andLove's Labour's Lost; we shall see hereafter that in 1591 these were quite recent plays.The Eglamour of Verona mentioned in i. 2. 9 is not the Eglamour of Milan who appears in iv. 3, v. 1. Style and metre require an early date for i. ii. 1-3 and parts of iii. 1; but in any argument of an internal nature, Johnson's weighty remark should be remembered—"Frommereinequality, in works of imagination, nothing can with exactness be inferred." The immediate origin of the plot is unknown; parts of the story are identical with those ofThe Shepherdess Filismenain Montemayor'sDiana, translated in MS. by Young, c. 1583, and of Bandello'sApollonius and Syllain Rich'sFarewell to Military Profession(1581).Felix and Philiomenahad been dramatised and acted at Court by the Queen's players, 1584-5. That the revision ofThe Two Gentlemenwas hurriedly performed is clear from the unusually large number ofExitsandEntrancesthat are not marked. This hurry accounts, in some degree, for the weakness of the play, which induces so many critics to insist on an early date for it as a whole. Yet the special blemish they discover, v. 4. 83, the yielding up of Silvia by Valentine, is paralleled in theDream, where (iii. 2. 163) Lysander says, "With all my heart, in Hermia's love I yield you up my part:" and that Shakespeare felt the unreality of this part of the plot is clear fromTwo Gentlemen, v. 4. 25, which tome seems a manifest reminiscence of his last play, "How like a dream is this I see and hear!" (cf.Midsummer-Night's Dream, iv. 1. 190, "It seems to me that yet we sleep, we dream"). He had been reading Chaucer, as we know, and from him had adopted this method of presenting stories in a dream. A slighter reminiscence of Chaucer'sKnight's Taleoccurs in the mention of Theseus, iv. 4. 173.
1595-6.
Romeo and Julietwas surreptitiously printed by J. Danter in 1597; "as it hath been often with great applause played (publicly), by the Rt. Hon. the L. of Hunsdon, his servants." This edition must have been printed in 1596 (old reckoning), for the players would have been called the Chamberlain's servants except during the tenure of that office by W. Brooke, Lord Cobham, from 23d July 1596 to 5th March 1597. That it was on the stage as well asRichard II.in 1595-6, appears from Weever'sEpigrams. A correct edition ofRomeoappeared in 1599. The relation of these two versions of the play presents a difficult problem. The 1599 Quarto Q2is unquestionably the play of 1595-6, as acted by the then Chamberlain's players at the Theater; for it does not follow, as Mr. Halliwell supposes, that because they continuedto act it when called Lord Hunsdon's players, they had not ever acted it before. Such reasoning would compel us to assign all plays published as "acted by the King's players" to a date subsequent to 1602—Hamlet, for example, andTroylus and Cressida. Nor does it follow that because it was acted at the Curtain, where Marston mentions it in hisScourge of Villany(S. R. 8th September 1598), that it wasproducedat that same theatre. Mr. P.A. Daniel has shown, in his Parallel Text Edition, that the 1597 Quarto Q1is a shortened version of the play, no doubt for stage purposes (compare the Quartos in i. 1; i. 3; iii. 1). He has also with great ingenuity conclusively proved that Q2is a revised copy made on a text in many places identical with Q1(see i. 1. 122; i. 4. 62; ii. 3. 1-4; iii. 2. 85; iii. 3. 38-45; iii. 5. 177-181; iv. 1. 95-98, 110; v. 3. 102, 107). But his conclusion that Q1is partly made up from notes taken during the performance, is not borne out by any evidence. There are no "mistakes of the ear" in this play, nor is this conclusion consistent with his own theory that Q2was a revision made on the text of Q1. I owe what I believe to be the real solution to a hint from my son, a boy of thirteen. When a play was written and licensed, at least three copies would be made of it. One, with the Master ofthe Revels' endorsement (which I will call R), would be kept in the archives of the theatre intact; one would be made for the manager (M), which would have occasional notes of stage direction, &c., inserted; and one, an acting copy, for the prompter (P), usually much abridged from the original and always altered: this would contain stage directions, &c., in full, but in the unaltered passages would be identical with M. Now Q1shows evident signs of being printed from a shortened copy P; Q2is manifestly a revision of a full copy M. The genealogy of the Quartos then stands thus:—
Q2is, according to this theory, a revised version made on acompletecopy of an early version of the play, while Q1is printed from the prompter's copy of the same early version. When the revision took place this copy would be thrown aside as worthless; and any dishonestemployéof the theatre could sell it to an equally dishonest publisher, who would publish it as the play now acted. If this solution be correct, and it is the only one yet proposedthat meets all the difficulties of the case, Q1is specially interesting as being the earliest extant play (as acted) in which Shakespeare had a share. For it is clear that some passages in it, especially ii. 6, the laments in iv. 5, and Paris' dirge in v. 3, are not only unlike the corresponding passages in Q2, but unlike anything we have from Shakespeare's hand. The date of the early form of the play was 1591, eleven years after the earthquake of 1580 (i. 3. 23, 30). As confirmatory of the conclusion that Q2was revised from an early play note that in i. 1 the servants are nameless in Q1, but have names in the stage directions in Q2; that in 1. 3 the servant is called clown in Q1; that in iii. 5 in Q2, where the prefixes vary betweenLadyandMother, it is in the unaltered parts thatMotheris used as in Q1, butLadyalways where enough alteration has taken place to require a completely fresh transcript; that in v. 3 there is a double entry marked for the Capulets (a sure sign); that in ii. 3. 1-4, v. 3. 108-111, duplicate versions occur. On the other hand, the printing of the Nurse's speeches in italics in both Quartos is conclusive for identity of origin in that scene. Other points worth noting are that "Queen Mab, what's she?" i. 4. 55 in Q1are omitted in Q2: Mab had become well known in 1595, probably through Drayton'sNymphidia.In ii. 2. 144, "I am afraid all this is but a dream," reminds us of similar passages inErrors, ii. 2. 184;Two Gentlemen, v. 4. 26; andDream, iv. 1. 199, &c. W. Kempe acted the part of Peter (see entry in iv. 5); Balthazar is proparoxyton in v. 1. The line in iii. 2, 75, "O serpent heart hid with a flowering face" (where Q1has "serpent's hate"), is very like the often-quoted "O tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide" (3 Henry VI.i. 4. 137). The play is founded on Arthur Brooke's poem,The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, containing a rare example of true constancy. Constancy in love is its main subject. He took the Italian form of the name Romeo, and the time of Juliet's sleep forty-two hours ("forty at least" in the novel) fromRhomeo and Juliettain Painter'sPalace of Pleasure. Much unnecessary writing has been expended on this forty-two hours; the plot requires forty-eight. Daniel, in hisRosamund(S. R. February 1591-2), and the author ofDoctor Doddypol(c. October 1594), have passages very like some in this play. A ballad founded on the play was entered S. R. 15th August 1596. On the mention of "the first and second cause" in ii. 4. 26 and (in Q1only) in iii. 1, some critics base the conclusion that this play must be subsequent to Saviolo'sBook of Honour, &c. (S. R. 19th November 1594). I believe that the bookreferred to isThe Book of Honor and Arms, wherein is discussed theCAUSESof quarrel,&c. (S. R. 13th December 1589). The same expression occurs inLove's Labour's Lost, i. 2. 184; in any case it probably belongs to the revised version of this last named play. The alteration in ii. 4 from "to-morrow morning" to "this afternoon," shows that in the revision Shakespeare attended to details in the time of action.
1596.
King Johnwas founded on the old play acted by the Queen's men, calledThe Troublesome Reign of King John. The lines ii. 1. 455-460 are imitated inCaptain Stukeleyby Dekker and others, acted at the Rose, 11th December 1596; iii. 1. 176-179 refer manifestly to the Pope's bull in 1596, inciting the English to depose Elizabeth; Chatillon's speech ii. 1. 71-75 is most applicable to the great fleet sent against Spain in the same year; Constance's lamentations have been reasonably referred to the death of Hamnet Shakespeare (buried 11th August); theIron Ageis alluded to in iv. 1. 60, and never elsewhere in Shakespeare. Now, Heywood's play of that name was on the stage from June 23 to July 16 under the title ofTroy. The summer of 1596 is thus undoubtedly the date of Shakespeare's play.There are some indications of the play having been shortened; Act ii. in the Folio has only seventy-four lines, and Essex has a part of only three lines, although in the olderJohnhe appears in five scenes. I think he was meant to be entirely cut out c. 1601 after Essex' execution, and these three lines should be given to Salisbury. The rival play ofStukeleywas shortened in the same way; a whole act was expunged before its publication in 1605. In i. 2 (Folio) the Citizen on the walls is called Hubert; this indicates that the same actor represented both characters.
1596-7.
The Merchant of Venice, orJew of Venice, was no doubt founded on an old play calledThe Jew of Venice, by Dekker. It seems, from the title of the German version of this play, that the Jew's name was Joseph. The name Fauconbridge in i. 2 (where Portia's suitors are enumerated, compareTwo Gentlemen, i. 2) points to a date soon afterJohn; and the "merry devil" of ii. 3. 2, a phrase never elsewhere used in Shakespeare, indicates contemporaneity withThe Merry Devil of Edmontonproduced in the winter of 1596. Again, the manifest imitations of this play inWily Beguiled, which I show elsewhere to date in the summer of 1597, give a posteriorlimit, which must be decisive. This play has no sign whatever of having been altered; the Clarendon Press guesses, founded on the discrepancy of the number of suitors (iv. for vi.) are as worthless as Mr. Hales' proof, referred to by Mr. Halliwell (Outlines, p. 251), of the date ofWily Beguiled. The conclusive evidence of imitation in this play is the conjunction of the "In such a night" lines in scene 16, with the "My money, my daughter" iterations of Gripe in scene 8 of the same play. On 22d July 1598, J. Roberts enteredThe Merchant or Jew of Veniceon S. R., but had to get the Lord Chamberlain's license before printing. On 28th October 1600, he consented to the entry of the play for T. Hayes; nevertheless, he issued copies of his own imprint independently.
1597.
The First Part of Henry IV.was entered on S. R. 25th February 1598; a genuine and authorised imprint. The publication of this play was hurried in order to refute the charge of attacking the Cobham family in the person of Sir John Oldcastle, the original name of the character afterwards called Falstaff (cf. "my old lad of the castle," i. 2. 48). Moreover, in i. 2. 182, we find in the text the names Harvey and Russel instead of Peto and Bardolph.The name Russel for Bardolph again occurs in a stage direction in2 Henry IV.ii. 2. These were evidently originally the names of the characters, and were changed at the same time as that of Oldcastle: Russel was the family name of the Bedford Earls, and Harvey that of the third husband of Lord Southampton's mother. The new names were picked up from the second part; in which Lord Bardolph and Peto (a distinct personage from the "humourist" of Part I.) were serious characters. The play was produced in the spring; the only mentions of June in Shakespeare's plays are in ii. 4. 397 (sunF.); iii. 2. 75; andAnthony, iii. 10. 14. In ii. 4. 425, Preston'sCambysesis ridiculed (cf.Dream). There is an imitation of iii. 2. 52 inLust's Dominion(theSpanish Moor's Tragedy, by Dekker, Haughton, and Day, February 1600, absurdly quoted by Stokes as Marlowe's). For the "abuses of the time" i. 2. 174; iv. 3. 81; see underSir T. More, 1596. This play, as well as2 Henry IV.andHenry V., is founded onThe Famous Victories of Henry V., an old play produced by the Queen's company; from which the name Oldcastle was taken.
1597-8.
The Second Part of Henry IV.was entered on S. R. 23d August 1600. This Quarto is muchabridged in i. 3, ii. 3, iv. 1, iv. 4, and a whole scene, iii. 1, is omitted. It abounds in oaths apparently foisted in by the players, and is apparently printed from a prompter's copy. The omissions arise, I think, from expurgations made by the Master of the Revels. Plays in which rebellion was the subject were especially disagreeable at Court. In the Epilogue there is evidence of alteration, the words "if my tongue ... good-night," having been inserted after the first production of the play, as is clear from their succeeding in Q. the clause about praying for the Queen, which must have been final in either version. The newly inserted words contain the allusion to Oldcastle, and show that in this play, as well as the former, that was the original appellation of Falstaff. This is confirmed by the appearance ofOld.in a speech prefix in i. 2. 137; and Russel in a stage direction in ii. 2. Mr. Halliwell's notion that Russel and Harvey were names of actors, has not the slightest foundation, nor are such actors known. Note also that in iii. 2. 29, Falstaff is mentioned as having been page to the Duke of Norfolk, which was historically true of Oldcastle (compare the "serving the good Duke of Norfolk" inThe Merry Devil. The date of that play is 1597.) The early part i. 1, or. ii. 4, was written before theentry of1 Henry IV.on S. R., 25th February 1598, in which Falstaff is mentioned. "Sincklo" occurs in a stage direction in v. 1; he is not known in connection with Shakespeare's company till this play was acted; he was previously a member of Pembroke's troop, and acted in3 Henry VI.when it belonged to them along with Humfrey [Jeffes], and Gabriel [Singer]. These two last named, and others, joined the Admiral's company at the Rose in October 1597, when Pembroke's men broke and went into the country. Sinkler, Beeston, Duke, and Pallant, stayed with the Chamberlain's men from c. 1594 till they left the Curtain in 1599, and then Kemp, Duke, Beeston, and Pallant set up a new company under the patronage of the Earl of Derby. Not one of these can be shown to have acted for the Chamberlain's, except between these dates, and that they left in discontent is probable from their being all omitted in the list of the 1623 Folio. Sinkler remained in Shakespeare's company till 1604. Pistol, in his first appearance in ii. 4, does not for a while talk in iambics. Mrs. Quickly (i. 2. 269) appears to be called Ursula (Nell inHenry V.) For the changes in the names of this and other characters in the series of Falstaff plays, see hereafter in the table given on p.207.
1597.
Love's Labour's Lostwas published in 1598, "as it was presented before her Highness this last Christmas." This was undoubtedly the earliest of Shakespeare's plays that has come down to us, and was only retouched somewhat hurriedly for this Court performance. The date of original production cannot well be put later than 1589. The characters are in several instances confused. In ii. 1 Boyet occurs in place of Berowne in the prefixes, and Rosaline for Katharine in the text. In iv. 2, and v. 1, there is still greater muddling of Holofernes and Nathaniel; now one, now the other appears, first as Curate, then as Pedant; in iv. 2, Berowne is called "one of the strange Queen's Lords," andQueenforPrincessoccurs in the prefixes through the greater part of the play. It is pretty clear that this lady ambassador was in the 1589 play called Queen. In ii. 1, the lines 21-114 were almost certainly added in 1597. They begin with a prefixPrin.inserted in the middle of one of the Queen's (Princess's) speeches; and in them only throughout the play is the prefixNav.(Navarre) used forKing. In iv. 3, the speech of Berowne (l. 290-365) must be mostly assigned to 1597; the repetition of the lines, "From women'seyes ... Promethean fire" is an unmistakable indication of revision (see the similar instances inRomeo). A like instance of substitution of a long version for a short one, occurs in v. 1. 847-879, which are manifestly the 1597 substitute for v. 1. 827-832; again, v. 2. 575-590 could not have conveyed any amusement in the conceit of "Ajax" till after the publication of Harrington'sMetamorphosis of Ajaxin 1596. The mention of "first and second cause," &c., in i. 2. 171-192, may imply that this was another of the additions. But it is in iv. 2 that the greatest changes have been made. It is clear from v. 1. 125, that Sir Holofernes was originally the Curate. Modern editors either omit Holofernes or substitute Nathaniel; Sir Holofernes is also the Curate in iv. 2. 67-156—"This is a gift ... colorable colours." In the rest of this scene Sir Nathaniel is the Curate, and Master Holofernes the Pedant. This latter is the 1597 version. I am not aware that this singular change of character has been noted, or any reason assigned for it, except my conjecture, that it was intended to disguise a personal satire which, however pertinent in 1589, had become obsolete in 1597. For a full discussion of all these changes made in 1597, see my article onShakespeare and PuritanisminAnglia, vol. 7.
1597-8.
Much Ado about Nothingis more likely than any other play to be identical withLove's Labour's Won. The internal evidence has been set forth by Mr. Brae; but there are points of external evidence also, that have been overlooked. It is very frequent, in old plays, to find days of the week and month mentioned; and when this is the case, they nearly always correspond to the almanac of the year in which the play was written. Now, in this play alone in Shakespeare is there such a mark of time; comparing i. 1. 285, and ii. 1. 375, we find that the 6th July came on a Monday; this suits the years 1590 and 1601, but none between; an indication that the original play was written in 1590. UnlikeLove's Labour's Lost, it was almost recomposed at its reproduction, and this day-of-the-week mention is, I think, a relic of the original plot, and probably due, not to Shakespeare, but to some coadjutor. Again, Meres' list in hisPalladis Tamiaconsists of the following plays:—Gentlemen of Verona(1595),Errors(1594),Love's Labour's Lost(1597),Love's Labour's Won(?),Midsummer-Night's Dream(1594-5),Merchant of Venice(1596-7),Richard II.(1595),Richard III.(1594),Henry IV.(1597),King John(1596),Titus Andronicus(1594),Romeo and Juliet(1595-6). The dates I have appended to these may in some instance be slightly erroneous; but I think no one will deny that the plays mentioned by Meres must have constituted the Shakespeare repertoire of the Chamberlain's men, and have been played by them between the dates of their constitution as a company in 1594, and the publication of Meres' book in 1598. But there is absolutely no other comedy of Shakespeare's that can be assigned to such a date.All's Well that Ends Wellwas certainly not played by his company so early. Again, Cowley and Kempe played the constables in this play; but Kempe had left the company by the summer of 1599. There is no argument against this conclusion yet produced. The main subject of the play had been dramatised before inAriodante and Geneuora, acted at Court by the Merchant Tailors' boys in 1582-3. The old German play of Jacob Ayrer,The Beautiful Phœnicia(c. 1595, Cohn) also contains points of similarity with Shakespeare's play that are not found in the Bandello novel which Belleforest translated in 1594. Pedro and Leonato are the only names which Shakespeare retains from the novel; which Ayrer follows in this respect. When the title was altered is doubtful: the play was known asBenedick and Beatricein 1613.
1599.
Henry V.was acted, with the choruses as we have them in the Folio, between 15th April and 28th September, while Essex was in Ireland; see chorus to Act v. That this was the final revision of the play, I am by no means convinced. The scene with the Scotch and Irish captains, iii. 2. 69 to end, I take to be an insertion for the Court performance, Christmas 1605, to please King James, who had been so annoyed that year by depreciation of the Scots on the stage. That the Quarto copy is printed from an abridged version made for acting purposes, is palpable. By omitting i. 1, and substituting one Bishop for two in i. 2 (two being retained in the stage direction) Ely is disposed of; by simple omission and transference of a speech in iv. 3 to Warwick, Westmoreland disappears; in a similar way Bedford gives place to Clarence; in iv. 3. 69 Salisbury is replaced by Gloster, and was evidently meant to be in l. 5-9 of the same scene; in iv. 1 Erpingham remains in the stage direction, but has been cut out in the text. That the version from which the Quarto was abridged was the 1599 copy, is a separate question to which I am inclined to say no. I rather hold that it was an earlier one without choruses, and following the Chronicle historiansmuch more closely. I cannot otherwise account for the substitution of Gebon for Rambures in iii. 7, and iv. 5; and of Bourbon for Britany in iii. 5, and for Dolphin in iii. 7, iv. 5. Mr. Daniel's theory is that the Quarto was later than the Folio version, that is to say, that Shakespeare wrote a play historically incorrect, that his errors were corrected in a stage version before 1600,i.e., while he was still himself an actor; that the errors were afterwards restored, and have kept the stage ever since. I cannot think this. I believe that the Quarto is (as we have seen in other instances) a shortened version of a play written early in 1598 for the Curtain Theatre, and that the Folio (except such alterations as were made after James's accession) is a version enlarged and improved for the Globe Theatre later in the same year. With regard to this series of Falstaff plays, the following table may be of interest.
According to my hypothesis, the original names Oldcastle, Ned Poins, Gadshill, &c., were chiefly taken fromThe Famous Victories of Henry V.; all these disappear from the series by ii. 4 of2 Henry IV.: the later names, Bardolph, Falstaff, Nym, Pistol, Shallow, persist to the end of the series, but did not occur in the original forms of1and2 Henry IV.The name Falstaff was no doubt taken from1 Henry VI., in which Shakespeare had been writing on March 1592, and which we know from the Epilogue toHenry V.to have been revived by 1598 at latest.
1599.
As You Like Itwas "stayed" on the 4th August 1600, and was written after "Diana in the fountain" (iv. 1. 154) was set up in Cheapside in 1598 (Stow). In iii. 5. 83 a line is quoted fromHero and Leander, published in 1598; the only instance in which Shakespeare directly refers to a contemporary poet. The date may, I think, be still more exactly fixed from i. 2. 94, "the little wit that fools have was silenced," which alludes probably to the burning of satirical books by public authority 1st June 1599. Every indication points to the latter part of 1599 as the date of production. This play is a rival to theRobin Hoodplays acted at the Rose in 1598;Jaques, "the traveller," seems to have been the origin of Jonson's Amorphus inCynthia's Revels, and Touchstone of Cos the whetstone in the same play; compare i. 2. 56. The female characters differed considerably in height, as inMuch AdoandThe Dream. The remarks of Touchstone on quarrels and lies in v. 4 should be compared withLove's Labour's Lost, i. 2 to end;Romeo and Juliet, ii. 4. 26, &c. The comparison of the world to a stage in ii. 7 suggests a date subsequent to the building of the Globe, with its motto ofTotus mundus agit histrionem; and the introduction of a fool proper, in place of a comic clown such as is found in all the anterior comedies, confirms this: the "fools" only occur in plays subsequent to Kempe's leaving the company. The title is taken from Lodge's address prefixed to hisRosalynde, on which the play is founded—"if you like it, so," says Lodge—and it is alluded to in the Epilogue (which, like that to2 Henry IV., is spoken by a female character), and again by Jonson in the Epilogue toCynthia's Revels, which play has much more connection with the present than is usually supposed. There is a tradition that Shakespeare took the part of Adam.
1600.
The Merry Wives of Windsor, as we have it in the Folio, was probably made for the Court performance in February 1600; in i. 4, the "King's English" does not imply that James, not Elizabeth, was on the throne; but that the time of action is under a king, Henry IV. It was written afterHenry V.; perhaps, according to the old tradition, in obedience to the Queen's command, who wished to see Falstaff in love, Shakespeare not having fulfilled his promise in the Epilogue to2 Henry IV.to introduce him in theHenry V.play; a failure probably caused by the defection at this date of the actor who had taken this part—Kempe, Beeston, Duke, and Pallant having quitted the King's men between the production of2 Henry IV.and that of this play. The title,The Merry Wives of Windsor, suggests approximation in subject withThe Merry Devil of Edmonton(1597), and so does the great likeness in the characteristics in the Hosts of these plays; while the plot of the Anne Page story is identical with that ofWily Beguiled(1597), Fenton corresponding to Sophos, Caius to Churms, Simple to Plodall, Evans to R. Goodfellow. It appears from the Quarto edition that Ford's assumed name was originally Brook, not Broome. This was probablyaltered because Brook was the name of the Lord Cobham, who took offence at the production of Oldcastle on the stage. The song of Marlowe's sung by Evans in iii. 1 was published as Shakespeare's in thePassionate Pilgrimin 1599; not necessarily by any means in consequence of its previous introduction in this play. Mr. P. A. Daniel has rightly pointed out that iii. 5 is really composed of two scenes, one between Falstaff and Quickly, the other between Falstaff and Ford; and that the latter ought to begin the fourth Act: he has also shown that in various places the Folio has inconsistencies not explicable without the aid of the Quarto. But all this does not prove any "degradation" of the play at "managerial" hands; it rather indicates hurried and careless production, such as we might expect in a play ordered to be produced in a fortnight, according to the old tradition. Another internal proof of such hurry, both in this play and inMuch Ado about Nothing, lies in the fact that they are almost entirely in prose; which is not the case in any other play by Shakespeare. And this brings us to the question of the nature of the Quarto version. It has been held to be merely a first sketch of the play: this theory is untenable. Mr. P. A. Daniel holds it to be a stolen version made up by a literary hack from shorthandnotes obtained at a representation. This hypothesis gives no explanation of the "cousin-Garmombles" of iii. 5, nor does it enable us to understand how no better a representation of the play was issued, nor how whole scenes (that of the fairies for example) appear in quite a different version from the Folio. My own opinion is that the case is parallel to that ofRomeo and Juliet; that the Quarto is printed from a partly revised prompter's copy of the older version of the play, which became useless when Shakespeare had made his final version. I believe also that this older version was produced soon after the visit of the Count of Mümplegart (Garmombles) to Windsor in August 1592; that it was probably theJealous Comedy, acted as a new play by Shakespeare's company 5th January 1593; that when Shakespeare revived this old play, he accommodated the characters toHenry IV.as best he could. Mr. Daniel's argument thatThe Merry Wiveswas a later play thanHenry V., because Nym would otherwise have had no title to special mention in the title-page of the Quarto, has not much weight. This Quarto was printed three years afterHenry V.was produced, and Nym's reputation from either play was three years old, according to Mr. Daniel himself. Why then should he not be mentioned?
I must add a word on the Fairy scene, v. 5. The fairies are Nan the Queen (in red?), cf. iv. 4. 71; Will Cricket (in grey?); two other boys, Bede and Bean, in green and white; and Evans, Puck Hobgoblin or Robin Goodfellow, in black. The prefixesQu.,Qui., andPist.are mistakes forQueenandPuck. Pistol and Quickly cannot be actors in this scene, nor in the entrance are they placed with "Evans, Anne Page, Fairies," but at the ends of the second and third lines, as if by afterthought. All the Pistol fairy speeches belong to Evans (Puck). There seems to have arisen some confusion in the final revision, when this scene was probably altered. Further confirmation of the original early date of the play may be found in Falstaff's statement that the Thames shore was "shelvy and shallow" (iii. 5. 15); for in 1592 the Thames was so low as to be fordable at London Bridge, and Falstaff was thrown in the ford at Datchet. But the allusions to "three Doctor Faustuses" and Mephistopheles are not helpful;Faustuswas on the boards till 1597 at least. One of Henry Julius' playsderived from English sources, printed in 1594,The Adulteress, contains the same story asThe Merry Wives. If this was not derived from Shakespeare's play, whence was it? The ground of the English play was probably the story in Tarleton'sNews out of Purgatory(1590). Note that the other play by Julius distinctly traceable in origin to the English stage isVincentius Ladislaus(1594), in which the similarities toMuch Ado(1590), are as marked as in the present instance. We have already seen that Evans acts the part of Robin Goodfellow, and that Will Cricket is another fairy; but these are two characters inWily Beguiled, in which play Robin Goodfellow means Drayton and Will Cricket Kempe. I believe that in Shakespeare's play, Evans and Dr. Caius are satirical representations of Drayton and Lodge. Drayton is introduced as Evan, a Welsh attorney, by Jonson inFor the Honour of Wales, and Lodge was frequently satirised on the stage as a French doctor. The part of Falstaff was acted in Charles the First's time by Lowin, and there is no reason why he should not have been the original performer of it in this play as revised. He was twenty-four years old in 1600.
1600.
Julius Cæsaris alluded to in Weever'sMirror of Martyrs(Sir John Oldcastle), 1601; and the actor of Polonius inHamletiii. 2. 109 had probably acted the part of Cæsar; at any rateCæsarmust be anterior to the QuartoHamletwhich wasproduced in 1601. The structure of this play is remarkable; the first three acts and last two have no characters in common except Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and Lucius; there are in fact two plays in one,Cæsar's TragedyandCæsar's Revenge. Contemporary plays by other dramatists were produced in a double pattern:e.g., Marston'sAntonio and Mellida, in two parts; Chapman'sBussy d'Ambois, in two parts; Kyd's old play ofJeronymo, in two parts. All these were on the stage at the same time asJulius Cæsar. Revenge-plays with ghosts in them were the rage for the next four years. That the present play has been greatly shortened, is shown by the singularly large number of instances in which mute characters are on the stage; which is totally at variance with Shakespeare's usual practice. The large number of incomplete lines in every possible position, even in the middle of speeches, confirms this. That alterations were made we have the positive testimony of Jonson, who in hisDiscoveriestells us that Shakespeare wrote, "Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause" (compare iii. 1. 47). That this original reading stood in the acting copies till not long before the 1623 Folio was printed, is clear from the fact that Jonson, in the Induction to hisStaple of News(1625), alludesto it as a well-known line requiring no explanation—"Cry you mercy," says Prologue, "you never did wrong but with just cause." This would imply that Shakespeare did not make the alterations himself; a hypothesis confirmed by the spelling of Antony without anh: this name occurs in eight of Shakespeare's plays, and in every instance but this invariably is spelled Anthony. Jonson himself is more likely to have been called on to make this revision than any other author connected with the King's company c. 1622. The "et tu Brute" about which so much has been written was probably taken from Jonson'sEvery Man out of his Humour(i. 1); it is found in theDuke of York(1595) and elsewhere. Nicholson, in hisAcolastus his after wit(S. R. 8th September 1600), probably took it from Shakespeare's play, "Et tu Brute! wilt thou stab Cæsar too?"
1601.
All's Well that Ends Wellmanifestly contains passages—i. 1. 230-244; i. 3. 130-142; ii. 1. 130-214; ii. 3. 80-110, 132-151; iii. 4 letter: v. 3 concluding part—which are of very early date; certainly written not later than 1593. It is not, however, in my opinion, to be identified withLove's Labour's Won: the allusions to the present title in iv. 4. 35; v. 1. 24; v. 3. 333, 336, all occur in rhymepassages, and some of them, at least, belong to the earlier date. The play, as we have it, was written after Marston'sJack Drum's Entertainment(1600), to which there is a palpable allusion in iii. 6. 41; and beforeThe Dutch Courtesan(probably 1602) by the same author, which contains several allusions to its title. The nameCorambusin iv. 3. 185 suggests the same date, as this is the appellation of Polonius in the QuartoHamlet. The introduction of Violenta, a mute character, in iii. 5, and the substitution of the same name inTwelfth Night, i. 5, for Viola, show that this last-named play was the last written of the two, but not much interval could have occurred between them. In confirmation of this approximation of dates, compare the name Capilet, v. 3. 147, 159, withTwelfth Night, iii. 4. 315. In plot this play agrees withMuch Adoin the supposed death of Helen, and the promise of Bertram to marry Maudlin Lafeu; withMeasure for Measure, in the substitution of Helen for Diana; withThe Gentlemen of Verona, in Helen's pilgrim disguise, and her meeting with the Hostess. In it andTwelfth Nightwe find a few slight allusions to the Puritans; another confirmation of date. The only other use even of the word Puritan is in the late playWinter's Tale, iv. 3. 46. Compare the doubtfulPericles, iv. 6. 9.The way in which the earthquake is mentioned in i. 3. 91, gives a still further confirmation. There was an earthquake in London in 1601. I take the boasting Parolles to be Marston; born under Mars, muddied in Fortune's displeasure, an egregious coward, an accuser of Captain Dumain of being lousy, he in all points agrees with Marston, as figured in the other satirical plays of the time. The charge against Dumain is repeated against Jonson inSatiromastix; Marston had left the Admiral's company in 1599, just before the Fortune Theatre was built for them. His cowardice is dilated on in Jonson'sConversations, and the allusions to him asJack Drumare frequent in the play. Once we find Tom Drum in v. 2 (fromTom Drum's VantsinGentle Craft, 1598), a hint that Thomas Dekker, author ofThe Shoemaker's Holiday, or The Gentle Craft(1600), was aiding and abetting John Marston in his satirical plays. Helen was acted by a short boy (i. 1. 202). The incident of the King's gift to Helen of his ring, only referred to in the last scene, seems to point at the gift of a ring to Essex by Elizabeth in 1596. Essex was executed in 1601, just before this play was acted. The older parts pointed out above were, I think, incorporated from detached scenes written in 1593 during the plague time, and laidby for future use. The plot is fromGiletta of Narbonnein Painter'sPalace of Pleasure, a book used by Shakespeare in 1594 for his alteration ofEdward III.Mr. Stokes says that Eccleston and Gough acted in this play, on the authority of Mr. Halliwell; one of the manyignes fatuithat have misled this unwary compiler.
1601-2.
Twelfth Night, or What You Will, was first acted 2d February 1602 at one of the Inns of Court (Manningham'sDiary). Its date lies between Marston'sMalcontent(1602), (of Malevole in which play Malvolio is clearly a caricature), andWhat You Will(1602) by the same author. This adoption of the name of his play seems to have induced Shakespeare to replace it by the now universally adopted title. The appellation Rudesby (v. 1. 55) is from Chapman'sSir Giles Goosecap(1601). Several minor points have been already noticed under the previous playAll's Well. In this play, as in that, I believe that earlier written scenes have been incorporated. It is only in similar cases that we find such contradictions as that between the three months' sojourn of Viola at the Count's court (v. 1), and the three days' acquaintance with the Duke in i. 4. In ii. 4 there are palpable signs ofalteration, and iii. 1. 159-176, v. 1. 133-148 are surely of early date. Moreover, the singular agreement of the plot with theComedy of Errorsin the likeness of the twins, and withThe Gentleman of Verona, or rather withApollonius and Sylla, whence part of that play was derived, point to a likelihood that the first conceptions of these plays were not far apart in time. I think the early portions were written in 1593, like those of the preceding play. For the change from Duke (i. 1-4) to Count in the rest of the play compareThe Gentlemen of Verona. I believe that Sir Toby represents Jonson and Malvolio Marston; but that subject requires to be treated in a separate work from its complexity.
1602.
Troylus and Cressidawas published surreptitiously in 1609, with an address to the reader stating that it had been "never staled with the stage." This statement was withdrawn in the same year, and a new title-page issued, "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants at the Globe." It had in fact been entered in S. R. 1603, February 7, by J. Roberts, and licensed for printing, "when he hath gotten sufficient authority for it"—which he evidently did not get. It could not therefore have been produced later than 1602.Nor could it, as we have it, have been earlier; the line i. 3. 73, "rank Thersites with his mastic jaws" evidently alluding to Dekker'sSatiro-Mastix(1601). I once thought Marston, asHistriomastixorTheriomastix, was alluded to; but the character of Thersites suits Dekker, not Marston. Jonson describes him inThe Poetaster, iii. 1, as "one of the most overflowingrankwits in Rome; he will slander any man that breathes if he disgust him." In 1602, Jonson, Marston, and Shakespeare had become reconciled; of reconciliation with Dekker, at any time, there is no trace. This play is probably the "purge" given by Shakespeare to Jonson when he put down all those "of the university pen" (The Return from Parnassus, iv. 3, acted in the winter 1602-3); Ajax representing Jonson, Achilles Chapman, and Hector Shakespeare: but whether this conjecture be true or no, Dekker is certainly Thersites. All this part of the play (the camp story) splits off from the love story of Troylus and Cressida, which is of much earlier date, c. 1593. The two parts are discrepant in minor points, notably in the existence of a truce (i. 3. 262), "dull and long-continued" fighting having been abundant in i. 2. The parts written in 1602 are i. 3; ii. 1; ii. 2; ii. 3; iii. 3. 34 to end; iv. 5. (except lines 12-53); v. i; v. 2 (retains mucholder work); v. 3. 1-97. All this part bears evident marks of the reading of Chapman'sIliadi.-vii. (1598); the love story is somewhat from the old Troy book printed by Caxton, but more from Chaucer'sTroilus and Cressid. At the end of v. 3, in the Folio v. 10. 32-34, are repeated; this shows that the 1602actingcopy was meant to end with v. 3, thus making the play a comedy; as it now stands it is usually classed with the tragedies; in the Folio, it is placed unpaged between the Histories and Tragedies, and is not mentioned in the "Catologue" of contents. The prologue and v. 4-10 contain much work that is unlike Shakespeare's, and are probably by some coadjutor whose other lines have been replaced by the 1602 additions. Heywood in hisIron Agetreated this same subject, and the date of that play is important in this investigation. TheAgesof Heywood were acted before 1611 (see his Address to the Reader inThe Golden Age);The Iron Agewas "publicly acted by two companies on one stage at once," and "at sundry times thronged three several theatres." These were the Rose, the Curtain, and the Bull; Pembroke's men, and the Admiral's, acted together at the Rose, October to November 1597. This must have been the time when theIron Agewas performed; but not as a new play. It would otherwise have been entered inHenslowe'sDiaryas such. All theAgeswere then probably old in 1597. In 1595-6 we find them accordingly entered by Henslowe under other names; in 1595, March 5,The Golden Age, whose scenes are in Heaven and Olympus, appears as Steleo (Cœlo) and Olempo; he subsequently writes Seleo for Steleo;The SilverandBrazen Ageson May 7 and May 23, as the first and second parts ofHercules. These three plays were produced in succession. The entry ofGalfrido and Bernardois a forgery, and a clumsy one, for it necessitates a Sunday performance, which is a thing unknown in Henslowe'sDiary, if the dates be properly corrected. On 23d June 1596,Troywas acted, palpablyThe Iron Age; and on 7th April 1597,Five Plays in Onemay have been the second part of that play. About February 1599, Heywood left the Admiral's men, and joined Lord Derby's; in April, Dekker and Chettle produced theirTroylus and Cressida; in May theirAgamemnon, and Dekker hisOrestes' Furies. I believe that all these were merely enlargements of Heywood'sIron Age. Dekker was a "dresser of plays" and a shameless plagiarist; witness the stealing of Day's work, which he afterwards reclaimed in hisParliament of Bees. At the same time that Dekker was thus pillaging Heywood, his friend Marston was satirising Heywood as Post-hasteinHistriomastixfor appropriating Shakespeare'sTroylus(of 1593) and bringing outThe Prodigal Child, the oldAcolastusof 1540, as a new play. There can be no doubt that the company satirised inHistriomastixis Derby's. It was a "travelling" company, newly set up, with a poet who extemporises his plays (Heywood had a share in 220) and uses