FOOTNOTES:

"No new luxury of blandishment,But plenty of Old England's mother's words."

"No new luxury of blandishment,

But plenty of Old England's mother's words."

The allusion toTroylus, l. 267-275, in which "he shakes his furious spear," has led some persons to a very absurd identification of Posthaste with Shakespeare. I have noticed before the singular allusion toThe Iron AgeinJohniv. 1. 60 (1596).

1603.

The Taming of the Shrewis unlike any play hitherto considered; the Shakespearian part of it being evidently confined to the Katharine and Petruchio scenes—ii. 1. 167-326; iii. 2 (except 130-150, 242-254); iv. 1; iv. 3; iv. 5 (except three lines at end); v. 2 (except ten lines at conclusion). The construction of the play shows that it was not composed by Shakespeare in conjunction with another author, but that his additions arereplacements of the original author's work; alterations made hurriedly for some occasion when it was not thought worth while to write an entirely new play. Such an occasion was the plague year of 1603, when the theatres were closed and the companies had to travel. We shall see, hereafter, that Shakespeare's other similar alterations of other men's work were made in like circumstances. This date is confirmed by the allusions to other taming plays, of which there were several; the present play, in its altered shape, being probably the latest: ii. 1. 297 refers toPatient Grissel, by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton, December 1599; "curst" in ii. 1. 187, 294, 307; v. 2. 188, to Dekker'sMedicine for a Curst Wife, July 1602; and iv. 1. 221 to Heywood'sWoman Killed with Kindness, March 1603. There is nothing but the supposed inferiority of work to imply an earlier date; and this, on examination, will be seen to be merely a subjective inference arising from the reflex action of the less worthy portion with which Shakespeare's is associated. Rudesby in iii. 2. 10 is fromSir Giles Goosecap(1601), and Baptista, as a man's name, could hardly have come under Shakespeare's notice, when in hisHamlethe made it a woman's. The earlier play thus altered probably dates 1596, when an edition ofThe Taming of a Shrewwasreprinted. This last-named play was written for Pembroke's company in 1588-9. Another limit of date is given by the nameSinckloin the Induction. Sinklo was an actor with the Chamberlain's men, from 1597 to 1604.Nickein iv. 1. is Nicholas Tooley. The play is not mentioned by Meres in 1598. In the Induction, "The Slys are no rogues: we came in with Richard Conqueror," is, I think, an allusion to the stage history of the time. Sly and Richard the Third (Burbadge) came into Lord Strange's company together in 1591. In the Pembroke play, Don Christophero Sly was probably acted by Christopher Beeston. The Induction, partly revised by Shakespeare, seems to have been clumsily fitted by the players (as, indeed, the whole play is, especially in the non-appearance of "my cousin Ferdinand," iv. 1. 154, whose place seems to be taken by Hortensio): surely Sly ought to have been replaced, as in the 1588 play; and is it possible that Shakespeare even in a farce should have made Sly talk blank verse, sc. 2, l. 60-120?The Taming of a Shrew, as acted in June 1594 at Newington Butts, was the old play which had belonged to Pembroke's men, probably by Kyd; but the first version of the play, afterwards altered by Shakespeare, was written, I think, by Lodge, (? aided by Drayton in the Induction). ThisInduction was, I think, greatly altered by Shakespeare in 1603.

1603.

Hamletis extant in three forms—the Folio, which is evidently a stage copy considerably shortened for acting purposes; the 1604 Quarto, which is a very fair transcript of the author's complete copy, with a few omissions; and the 1603 Quarto, imperfect and inaccurate. The date of the perfect play is certainly 1603. In ii 2. 346, &c., we find that the tragedians of the city—i.e., Shakespeare's company—are "travelling," and that "their inhibition comes of the late innovation." This has been interpreted in various ways, the most absurd being that which regards the establishment of the Revels children in 1604 as the innovation: hardly less so is Malone's notion that the putting down of the Curtain players in 1600 is the inhibition referred to. The Globe company travelled in 1601 in consequence of Essex' attempt at political innovation, and their actingRichard II.in connection therewith; they travelled again in 1603, the theatres being shut because of the plague: this latter is the time referred to in the final version, for in the latter part of that year the Puritan party had by millenary petitions at Hampton Court conferences, and soforth, attempted a religious "innovation;" and their anxiety to avoid this charge is evident in their continual protests that it was a reformation, not an innovation, that they wanted (see Fuller,Church History, under 1603-4passim). The immediately succeeding passage, l. 351-379, however, which also occurs in the earlier version, distinctly points to 1601. The "berattling of the common stages by the aery of little eyases," the controversy between poet and player, ended in that year; these lines are not contained in the second Quarto. The words "if they should grow themselves to common players," indicate a possible date of writing c. 1610, when Ostler and Underwood, Chapel boys in 1601, had grown up and been taken into the King's men; but the use of the present tense in the preceding paragraph shows that the same Chapel children who had been engaged in the Jonson and Marston quarrel were still on the stage, and that the date of writing is anterior to their replacement by the Revels boys in January 1604. The growing to common players then must be taken generally, not specifically; unless we suppose a still further revision c. 1610, which on other grounds is not unlikely. It may be worth noting that the play ofDido, in rivalry of which the player's speech in ii. 2 is recited, belonged to these same Chapelchildren. In like manner the Pyrgus in Jonson'sPoetasterrecites bits ofThe Battle of Alcazarin rivalry with Dekker'sCaptain Stukeley. But although the date of the perfect play is almost certainly 1603,Hamlethad certainly been on the stage some years at that time. Tucca inSatiromastix(1601) says, "My name'sHamlet Revenge," and he comes on, "his boy after him, with two pictures under his cloak." In Marston'sMalcontent(1601), "Illo, ho, ho, ho! art thou there, old Truepenny?" must refer toHamlet. In iii. 2. 42, "Let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them," refers, I think, to extemporising Kempe, who left Shakespeare's company in 1599. Florio'sMontaigne, which is implicitly referred to throughout the play (see Mr. Feis,Shakespeare and Montaigne, 1884), was entered S. R. 4th June 1600. On the title-page of the first Quarto it is said that the play had been acted in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and elsewhere;i.e., in the travelling of 1601. It is pretty clear, then, that 1601 was the date of its production. Polonius (iii. 2. 108) had already played Julius Cæsarin the University, which could hardly have been before 1601; andHamletwas entered by Roberts 26th July 1602, in S. R., "as it was lately acted." Plays thus produced during "travels," were almostalways hurried and careless performances; indeed, this form ofHamletseems to have been an unfinished refashioning of the old play by Kyd, that had so long been performed by the Chamberlain's men. The names Corambis and Montano for Polonius and Reynaldo, and a good deal of Acts iii. and iv., seem to be remnants of this old play. The name Corambus is found in the German version, which probably dates c. 1592. It also occurs inAll's Well, iv. 3. 185. The first Quarto is in this instance, as in those ofRomeo,Henry V., andMerry Wives, in my opinion, printed from a partly revised prompter's copy of the 1601 play, which became useless when the fuller version was made. In this instance there are traces of alterations having been made on this copy similar to that inRomeo, iii. 5. 177. The usual explanation of the peculiar text of imperfect Quartos is, that notes were taken in shorthand at the theatre, which, eked out by the vampings of some playdresser, made up a saleable version, however incorrect. The stronghold of this theory is the soliloquy in iii. 1. 56, &c. The minor errors of "right done" for "write down," i. 2. 222; "invenom'd speech" for "in venom steept," ii. 2. 533; "honor" for "owner," v. 1. 121; and the like, can be easily paralleled in the most authentic copies of printed plays of theperiod. But a careful examination of the text of that speech of Hamlet's in the first Quarto, shows that its present meaningless shape arises from the displacement of two lines only, an error which is most unlikely to have occurred in shorthand notes, and is completely subversive of the hack play-writing botcher hypothesis. I append this soliloquy, as I suppose it to have stood in the MS. of the prompter's copy, after the partial 1601 correction:

bourneThe undiscover'd country from whose sightno passenger ever return'd.Ay, that

bourne

The undiscover'd country from whose sight

no passenger ever return'd.

Ay, that

"To be, or not to be? Ay, there's the point.To die—to sleep—is that all? Ay. All? No.To sleep—to dream—ay, marry, there it goes.For in that dream of death when we, awake,Are doom'dbefore an everlasting Judge,The happy smile and the accurst are damn'd.But for the joyful hope of this, who'ld bearThe scorns and flattery of the world, the rightScorn'd by the rich, the rich curst of the poor,The widow being opprest, the orphan wrong'd,The taste of hunger, or a tyrant's reign,And thousand more calamities besides,When that he may his fullquietusmakeWith a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,But for a hope of something after death,The undiscover'd country, from whose bourneNo passenger has e'er return'd? Ay thatPuzzles the brain and doth confound the sense;Which makes us rather bear the ills we have,Than fly to others that we know not of.This consciënce makes cowards of us all."

"To be, or not to be? Ay, there's the point.

To die—to sleep—is that all? Ay. All? No.

To sleep—to dream—ay, marry, there it goes.

For in that dream of death when we, awake,

Are doom'dbefore an everlasting Judge,

The happy smile and the accurst are damn'd.

But for the joyful hope of this, who'ld bear

The scorns and flattery of the world, the right

Scorn'd by the rich, the rich curst of the poor,

The widow being opprest, the orphan wrong'd,

The taste of hunger, or a tyrant's reign,

And thousand more calamities besides,

When that he may his fullquietusmake

With a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,

But for a hope of something after death,

The undiscover'd country, from whose bourne

No passenger has e'er return'd? Ay that

Puzzles the brain and doth confound the sense;

Which makes us rather bear the ills we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of.

This consciënce makes cowards of us all."

I have put in italics in the text the marginal corrections of "proof" as shown above, inserted in their proper places; a comparison with the first Quarto will show how the printer, not the shorthand man or playdresser, by inserting them in the wrong places, has produced the nonsense that has caused so many groundless hypotheses.

"When we awake,And bornebefore an everlasting Judge,From whence no passenger ever return'dThe undiscover'd country, at whose sightThe happy smile," &c.

"When we awake,

And bornebefore an everlasting Judge,

From whence no passenger ever return'd

The undiscover'd country, at whose sight

The happy smile," &c.

And farther on:

"Ay thatO this conscience," &c.

The erroneous notions with regard to these imperfect Quartos arise, in a great measure, from their being compared with the carefully edited later versions; were they also edited and emended the differences would appear much smaller than they do now. The earlier (1601) form of this play was evidently hurriedly prepared during the journey to Scotland, in which the company visited the universities, at a time when the public taste for revenge-plays had been revived by the reproduction of Kyd'sJeronymo(Spanish Tragedy) by theChapel children, probably at Jonson's suggestion; a new version of Kyd'sHamletnaturally followed. Other such plays were: Marston'sAntonio and Mellida(Paul's, 1599-1600); Shakespeare'sJulius Cæsar(1600); Chettle and Heywood'sHoffman, or Revenge for a Father, also calledLike quits Like(Admiral's, January 1603): Chapman'sRevenge of Bussyis of later date. A passage inRam Alley(c. 1609), v. 1, "The custom of thy sin so lulls thy sense," &c., is apparently imitated from iii. 4. 161, &c., a passage not found in the Folio. This would lead to the conjecture that the Folio abridgment was made after 1609; on the other hand, the re-insertion in it of ii. 2. 350-379 points to a date, about 1610, when Underwood and Ostler had "grown to common players," and were admitted among the King's men. It was probably made then by Shakespeare himself. It is indeed most unlikely, that were it not so, its text should have been preferred, by the editors of the Folio, to the fuller one of the Quarto, which lay ready printed to their hands. We have, then, in the forms of this play, an example of Shakespeare's hurried revision of the work of an earlier writer, but it must be remembered in a most mutilated form; of the full working out of his own conception, in the shape fittest for private reading; and finally, of hispractical adaptation of it to the requirements of the stage. The date of the printing of the first Quarto, and, therefore, of the revision made in the second, is after 19th May 1603, as the actors are called "King's servants" in the title-page. I. 1. 107-125, which surely allude to the death of Elizabeth, are omitted in the Folio. In iii. 2. 177, iv. 5. 77, alternative readings—

{"For women fear too much even as they love","And women's fear and love hold quantity,"{"And now behold""O Gertrard, Gertrard"—

{"For women fear too much even as they love","And women's fear and love hold quantity,"

{"For women fear too much even as they love",

"And women's fear and love hold quantity,"

{"And now behold""O Gertrard, Gertrard"—

{"And now behold"

"O Gertrard, Gertrard"—

are printed side by side, a sure mark of revision.

1604.

Measure for Measurewas written, in my opinion, in rivalry to Marston'sThe Fawn, which was printed March 1606, but produced 1603-4. It was also subsequent to Chettle and Heywood'sLike quits Like, 14th January 1603; v. 1. 416. All the allusions in it suit 1604. The avoidance of publicity by James I. (i. 1. 68-71; ii. 4. 27-30); the existing war and expected peace (i. 2. 4. 83); the stabbers—four out of ten prisoners—in iv. 3; the stuffed hose, to which Pompey's nameis appropriate, all agree in this; peace was concluded in the autumn; the "Act of Stabbing" was passed in this year, the bombasted breeches revived with the new reign. But these are more valuable in showing what reliance can be placed on such allusions than in fixing the date of the play; for it was acted at Court, 26th December 1604. The title was probably taken from a line in3 Henry VI., ii. 6. 55; the plot is likeAll's Wellin the substitution of Mariana,Twelfth Nightin the Duke's love declaration at the end. It is founded on Whetstone'sPromos and Cassandra(1582). An order was made in 1603, that no new houses should be built in the suburbs of London. Compare i. 2. 104.

1604.

Othellowas acted at Court 1st November 1604, being, no doubt, likeMeasure for Measure, 26th December, a new play that year. TheMerry Wives, 4th November, andHenry V., 7th January, were revised for the same Revels. TheErrors, 28th December,Loves Labour's Lost, between New Year and Twelfth Day, andThe Merchant of Venice, January 10, 12, were also reproduced. The document in the Record Office containing these details is a modern forgery, but Malone possessed atranscript of the genuine entry in the Revels accounts. It was a bold thing for Shakespeare to have performed before James I. in two plays on unfounded jealousy, at a time when the King was so jealous of the relations of the Queen with Lord Southampton. The 1622 Quarto copy of this play is abridged for stage reasons; by whom we cannot say. The allusion to the "huge eclipse" (v. 2. 99), points to the total eclipse of 2d October 1605. Shakespeare had probably been reading Harvey'sDiscoursive Problem concerning Prophesies(1588), in which he speaks of "ahugefearful eclipse of the sun" as to happen on that day. The likeness of this play in small details toMeasure for Measureindicates close contemporaneity of date,e.g., the name Angelo (i. 3. 16); the word "grange" (i. 1. 106), and "seeming" (iii. 3. 209). This play was again acted at Court in 1613. It was founded on Cinthio's novelHecatomithi, Third Decad, Novel 3. The "men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders" (i. 3. 145) came from Raleigh's narrative ofThe Discovery of Guyana(1600). He was "resolved" of their credibility. InThe Patient Man, by Dekker, S. R. 9th November 1604, there is a distinct reference to Othello—

"Thou kill'st her now again,And art more savage than a barbarous Moor" (i. 1).

"Thou kill'st her now again,

And art more savage than a barbarous Moor" (i. 1).

1605.

King Learwas probably on the stage when the old play ofLeiron which it was founded was published. This latter was entered on S. R. 8th May, as "The Tragical History of King Leir and his three daughters, as it was lately acted," but was published as "The true Chronicle History of King Leir and his three daughters, &c., as it hath been divers and sundry times lately acted." It is not tragical in any sense, and ends happily. Shakespeare was the first person who, in opposition to the chronicles, made a tragedy on this story. There can be no doubt that Stafford, the publisher, meant to pass the old play as Shakespeare's; the last trace we have of it on the stage is in April 1594, when it was acted at the Rose by the Queen's and Sussex' men, who almost immediately afterwards broke up. That Shakespeare's play remained on the stage till the end of 1605 is evident from the words "theselateeclipses" (i. 2. 112) which clearly refer to the huge eclipse of the sun in October 1605, and the immediately preceding eclipse of the moon in September. The word "late" could not be used, whether in the original text or by subsequent insertion, till October. That Shakespeare had been probably readingHarvey on the subject I have noticed under the preceding play, to which the present is every way closely allied. Compare, for instance, the characters of Iago and Edmund. The Quarto of 1608, entered S. R. 26th November 1607 as acted at Whitehall St. Stephen's Day,i.e., 26th December 1606, is abridged and slightly altered for Court representation and carelessly printed; the Folio is, on the other hand, somewhat shortened for the public stage. The names of the spirits in iii. 4 are from Harsnett'sDeclaration of Egregious Popish Impostures. The two lines at the end of Act i. and the Merlin's Prophecy (iii. 2. 79-95) are not in Shakespeare's manner; they are mere gag, inserted by the Fool-actor to raise a laugh among the groundlings. The story of Gloster and his sons is probably founded on Sidney'sArcadia, ii. 133-138, ed. 1598.

1606.

Macbeth, as we have it, is abridged for the stage in an unusual degree. Nevertheless it contains one scene, iii. 5, and a few lines, iv. i. 39-43, which are not by Shakespeare. The character of Hecate, and the songs in these passages (Black spirits and white, andCome away), are from Middleton'sWitch, acted 1621-22. The insertions inMacbethmust havebeen made in 1622; they were probably merely intended to introduce a little singing and music then popular; and music has ever since been an essential ingredient in the stage representations. Omitting these forty lines, we have ample evidence of the date of the play as Shakespeare left it. In the Porter's speech, ii. 3. 1-23, 26-46, the "expectation of plenty" refers to the abundance of corn in 1606; the allusions to equivocation certainly allude to the trial of Garnet and other Jesuits in the spring of that year: the "stealing out of a French hose" agrees with the short and strait fashion then in vogue, when "the tailors took more than enough for the new fashion sake" (A. Nixon'sBlack Year, 1606); the touching for the King's evil, iv. 3. 140-159, implies that James was on the throne. Camden, in hisRemains(1605), a book certainly known to Shakespeare, refers to it as a "gift hereditary." The "double balls and treble sceptres" in iv. 1. 119-122, necessitate a time of writing subsequent to 24th October 1604, when the constitution was changed. The applicability of the circumstances of the play to the Gowry conspiracy would be especially pleasing to James, and the predictions of the weyward sisters had already been presented to the King at Oxford in Latin in 1605. Warner added an account of Macbeth to his new edition ofAlbion's Englandin 1606, but the absolute argument against this being a new play when Forman saw it performed 20th April 1610, lies in the distinct allusion inThe Puritanby Middleton, acted 1606—"instead of a jester, we'll ha' th' ghost in a white sheet sit at upper end o' th' table." This was Shakespeare's first play without a jester, and Banquo's ghost sits in Macbeth's place at the upper end. There is little doubt that Malone was right in assigning the visit of the King of Denmark in July and August 1606 as the occasion for the production of this play at Court. But was this the date of its first production on the stage? All the evidences for it are gathered from ii. 3. 1-23, 26-46; iv. 1. 119-122; iv. 3. 140-159; every one of which passages bears evident marks of being an addition to the original text. The description of Cawdor's death is remarkably like that of the Earl of Essex in Stow (by Howes, p. 793), who minutely describes "his asking the Queen's forgiveness, his confession, repentance, and concern about behaving with propriety on the scaffold." Steevens (ii. 4) reminds us of corresponding passages inHamletandCæsar, to which playsMacbethis throughout more closely allied than toLearorTimon. The references to Antony, i. 3. 84, iii. 1. 57, are just what might be expected from one who had recentlyread Plutarch's life of Antony for writingJulius Cæsar. Shakespeare's company were in Scotland in 1601, and were appointed the King's Servants; Laurence Fletcher being admitted burgess of the guild of the borough of Aberdeen, 22d October 1601. This, I think, is the date of production ofMacbethon the stage, 1606 being that of the revised play at Court. But there are traces of a still earlier play. In 1596, August 27, there is, says Mr. Collier, an entry in S. R. (I suppose in that portion relating to fines, &c., which Mr. Arber has not been allowed to reprint) referring to two ballads, one onMacdobeth, the other onThe Taming of a Shrew. Kempe, in hisDance from London to Norwich(1600), refers to this ballad as made by "a penny poet whose first making was the miserable stolen story ofMac-do-elorMac-do-bethorMacsomewhat, for I am sure aMacit was, though I never had the maw to see it;" he bids the writer "leave writing these beastly ballads; make not good wenches prophetesses, for little or no profit." This ballad was in all probability founded on a play, as its companion was; a play probably written some year or two before. That Shakespeare had some connection with this early play, is rendered probable by iv. 1. 94-101, in which Dunsin'ane is accented inthe southern manner; in the rest of the play it is always, as in Scotland, Dunsina'ne. This passage, in which Macbeth speaks of himself in the third person, and rhymes in a manner which strongly reminds us of the pre-Shakespearian stage, suggests that the old play of c. 1593-4 was used by Shakespeare in making his 1601 version. I may ask the reader who doubts the remarkable alterations to which this play has been subjected, to examine the following incomplete lines at points where compression by omission seems to have taken place, i. 3. 103; i. 4. 35; ii. 1. 16; ii. 1. 24; ii. 3. 120; iii. 2. 155; iv. 3. 15; and to compare the later alterations by Davenant and others, as given in my article inAnglia, vol. vii.

1606-7.

Timon of Athensunquestionably contains much matter from another hand. The Shakespearian part is so likeLearin matter, andAnthony and Cleopatrain metre, that the conjectural date here assigned to it cannot be far wrong. It was founded on the passage in North'sPlutarch(Life ofAntony), and perhaps on the story as told in Painter'sPalace of Pleasure, with a hint or two from Lucian'sDialogues(? at second hand; no translation of that time is known). It would be out of proportion inthis work to reproduce my 1868 essay on the authorship, which awaits some slight corrections from recent investigation. It will be found in the New Shakspere Society'sTransactionsfor 1874. I can only here point out the parts that are certainly not Shakespeare's, namely, ii. 1; ii. 2. 194-204; iii. 1; iii. 2; iii. 3; iii. 4 (in great part); iii. 5; iii. 6. 116-131; iv. 2; iv. 3. 70-74, 103-106, 464-545; v. i. 157; v. 3. Delius and Elze say the second author was George Wilkins. Perhaps so; but they are certainly wrong in regarding the play as an alteration made by Shakespeare of another man's work. Whether Wilkins completed the unfinished sketch by Shakespeare, or the actors eked it out with matter taken from a previous play by him, I cannot tell: but Shakespeare's part is a wholetotus teres atque rotundus. There is no trace of his ever working in conjunction with any author after 1594, although in this play, inThe Shrew, andPericlesthere is evidence of his writing portions of dramas which were fitted into the work of other men. Wilkins left the King's men in 1607 and wrote for the Queen's. This migration to an inferior company is so unusual as to indicate some rupture on unfriendly terms. Perhaps the insertion of Shakespeare's work in his play offended him. The unShakespearian characters in the playare three Lords—Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius; three Servants—Flavius (Steward always in the Shakespeare part), Flaminius, and Servilius; three Strangers; three Creditors—Hortensius, Philotus, and 2d Varro; three Masquers; and the Soldier. I have not here assigned to Wilkins all parts of the play that have been suspected, but only those with regard to which the evidence is definite, with entire exclusion of merely æsthetic opinion.

1607.

Anthony and Cleopatrawas entered on S. R. 20th May 1608; and no doubt was written not much more than a year before that date. Where-ever we find plays entered but not printed in their author's lifetime, it is pretty safe to conclude that they were then still on the stage: compare, for Shakespeare, the instances ofThe Merchant of Venice,Troylus and Cressida, andAs You Like it.

1608.

Coriolanusin all probability was produced not long afterAnthony. There is no external evidence available. Both these Roman plays are founded on North'sPlutarch.

1608.

Periclesas we now have it was probably on the stage in 1608, when Wilkins published his prose version of "the play, as it was lately presented by the worthy and ancient poet John Gower." He was probably annoyed by the adoption of Shakespeare's version of the Marina story in place of his own. The rest of the play as it stands—i.e., Acts i. ii. and Gower chorus to Act iii.—are by Wilkins, in whose novel the only distinctly traceable piece of Shakespeare's is from iii. 1. 28-31, which is repeated almost verbatim. The play was published in 1609, probably as an answer to Wilkins; whose unaltered play must have been on the stage as early as 1606, seeing thatThe Puritan, acted that year, contains a distinct parody of the scene of Thaisa's recovery. This original form of the play was founded on Gower'sConfessio Amantisand Twine's novel ofPrince Apollonius, which was probably, in consequence of the popularity of the play, reprinted in 1607. It was, I think, this Wilkins' play that was entered in S. R. along withAnthony and Cleopatra20th May 1608, and the publication of which was stayed. There is no trace of any transfer of Blount's interest as so entered to Gosson, who published the altered play.To the popularity of this drama there are many allusions, notably one inPimlico, or Run Redcap(1609).

1609.

Cymbelinewas probably produced after the Roman plays and beforeWinters Tale; and the Iachimo part was doubtless then written. There is, however, strong internal evidence that the part derived from Holinshed, viz., the story of Cymbeline and his sons, the tribute, &c., in the last three acts, was written at an earlier time, in 1606 I think, just afterLearandMacbeth, for which the same chronicler had been used. All this older work will be found in the scenes in which Lucius and Bellarius enter. A marked instance in the change of treatment will be found in the character of Cloten. In the later version he is a mere fool (see i. 3; ii. 1); but in the earlier parts he is by no means deficient in manliness, and the lack of his "counsel" is regretted by the King in iv. 3. Especially should iii. 5 be examined from this point of view, in which the prose part is a subsequent insertion, having some slight discrepancies with the older parts of the scene.Philaster, which contains some passages suggested by this play, was written in 1611. The Iachimo story is found in Boccaccio'sDecameron,Day 11, Novel 9. The verse of the vision, v. 4. 30-122, is palpably by an inferior hand, and was probably inserted for some Court performance after Shakespeare had left the stage. Of course the stage directions for the dumb show are genuine. This would not have been worth mentioning but for the silly arguments of some who defend the Shakespearian authorship of these lines, and maintain that the play would be maimed without them. Forman saw this play acted c. 1610-11; which gives our only posterior limit of date.

1610.

The Winter's Talewas founded on Greene'sDorastus and Fawnia; it was still on the stage when Dr. S. Forman saw it, 15th May 1611; but this gives only a posterior limit. Sir H. Herbert mentions it as an old play allowed by Sir G. Buck. But Buck, although not strictly Master of the Revels till August 1610, had full power to "allow" plays from 1607 onwards. We are, after all, left in great measure to internal evidence. One really helpful fact is that Jonson inBartholomew Fairlinks it withThe Tempest: "If there be never aservant monsterin the Fair who can help it? nor anest of antics? He is loth to make nature afraid in his plays likethose that begetTales,Tempests, and such like drolleries." This was written in 1614, and at that date he would of course allude to thelatestproductions of Shakespeare, if to any. This allusion occurs in a play written for a rival company, the Princess Elizabeth's. In hisConversationswith Drummond, Jonson again refers to this playaproposof Bohemia having no sea-coast. I suspect that the Bear was a success inMucedorus, and therefore revived in this play.

1610.

The Tempestwas shown by Malone to contain many particulars derived from Jourdan's narrative, 13th October 1610,A Discovery of the Bermudas, otherwise called the Isle of Devils; by Sir Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, and Captain Newport, with divers others. He is not equally successful in showing that Shakespeare usedThe True Declaration of the Colony of Virginia, S. R. 8th November 1610, in which the reference toThe Tempestas a "Tragical Comedy" seems to me to show that the play was already on the stage. It does not follow that because the October pamphlet was used in the storm scenes, that none of the play was written before that month; but that the date ofits first appearance was in October to November 1610, I have little doubt. Gonzalo's description of his ideal republic is from Florio'sMontaigne. The play as we have it is evidently abridged; one character, the son of Anthonio the Duke of Milan, i. 2. 438, has entirely disappeared, unless the eleven lines assigned to Francisco are thedébrisof his part. The lines forming the Masque in iv. 1 are palpably an addition, probably made by Beaumont for the Court performance before the Prince, the Princess Elizabeth, and the Palatine in 1612-13; or else before the King on 1st November 1612 (The Winters Talebeing acted on 5th November). This addition consists only of the heroics, ll. 60-105, 129-138; the mythological personages in the original play having acted in dumb show. In the stage directions (l. 72) of the dumb show "Juno descends;" in the text of the added verse l. 102, she "comes," and Ceres "knows her by her gait." This and the preceding were surely Shakespeare's last plays; compare Prospero's speech, v. 1. 50, &c., and the Epilogue. He began his career with the Chamberlain's company (after his seven years' apprenticeship in conjunction with others, 1587-94), with a Midsummer Dream, he finishes with a Winter's Tale; and so his playwright's work is rounded; twenty-fouryears, each year an hour in the brief day of work, and then the rounding with a sleep.[13]

1613.

Henry VIII.as we have it is not the play that was in action at the Globe when that theatre was burned on Tuesday, 29th June 1613. Howes (Stow,Chronicles, p. 1003) says, "By negligent discharging of a peal of ordnance, close to the South side thereof the Thatch took fire, and the wind suddenly disperst the flame round about, and in a very short space the whole building was quite consumed and no man hurt; the house being filled with people, to behold the play, viz., ofHenry the Eight." A letter from Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, 30th June 1613, and another from John Chamberlain to Sir Ralph Winwood, 8th July 1613 (Winwood'sMemorials, iii. 469), give similar accounts. Sir Henry Wotton (Reliquiæ, p. 475),in a letter of 2d July 1613, says it was at "a new play acted by the King's players at the Bankside, calledAll is True, representing some principal pieces of the reign of Henry the Eighth." The title "All is True" is clearly alluded to in the Prologue, ll. 9, 18, 21; but the same Prologue shows that the extant play was performed as a new one at Blackfriars, for the price of entrance, a "shilling," l. 12, and the address to "the first and happiest hearers of the town," l. 24, are only applicable to the "private house" in Blackfriars; the entrance to the Globe was twopence, and the audience at this "public house" of a much lower class. This play is chiefly by Fletcher and Massinger, Shakespeare's share in it being only i. 2; ii. 3; ii. 4; while Massinger wrote i. 1; iii. 2. 1-193; v. 1. It was not, however, written by these authors in conjunction. Shakespeare appears to have left it unfinished; his part is more likeThe Winter's Talethan any other play, and was probably written just before that comedy in 1609, during the prevalence of the plague. I have before noted the disturbing effect of these plague times, with the concomitant closing of the theatres, &c., on Shakespeare's regular habits of composition. This play is founded on Holinshed'sChronicleand Fox'sChristian Martyrs(1563). It is worth notingthat its success called forth new editions of S. Rowley'sWhen you see me you know me, and theLord Cromwellof W. S. in this year; both plays on Henry the Eighth's times. On the authorship question see Mr. Spedding's Essay inThe Gentleman's Magazine, August 1850, Mr. Boyle's Essay and my own letter in theAthenæum. That the 1613 play (probably finished by Fletcher, and destroyed in great part in the Globe fire) was not that now extant is certain, for in a contemporary ballad on the burning of the Globe we are told that the "riprobates prayed for the fool," and there is no fool inHenry VIII.The extant play was produced by Fletcher and Massinger in 1617.

1625.

The Two Noble Kinsmenwas published in 1634, as written by Fletcher and Shakespeare. There is no other evidence that Shakespeare had any hand in it, except the opinions of Lamb, Coleridge, Spalding, Dyce, &c. These, on analysis, simply reiterate the old argument, "It is too good for any one else." Hazlitt and Hallam held, notwithstanding, the opposite opinion. I have myself shown inThe Literary World, 10th February 1883 (Boston), that the play was first acted in 1625. It was printed from a playhouse MS., with stage directions,such as i. 3: "2 Hearses ready with Palamon and Arcite; the 3 Queens. Theseus and his Lords ready;" and in iii. 5: "Knock for Schoole." But in iv. 2, we find an actor named Curtis taking the part of Messenger. No actor of that name is known except Curtis Greville, who joined the King's men between 1622, when he belonged to the Palsgrave's, and October 1626, when he performed in Massinger'sRoman Actor. Moreover, the Prologue tells us this was anewplay performed in a time of losses, and in anticipation of leaving London. The company did leave London in 1624, after their trouble in August about Middleton'sGame of Chess. On this occasion they travelled in the north, and performed at Skipton three times for £3; and again, in July 1625 they travelled, on account of the plague in London; where they ceased to perform in May, when the deaths from that disease exceeded forty per week. Greville probably joined the King's men on the breaking up of the Palsgrave's, of whom the last notice dates 3d November 1624. This gives Easter 1625 as the likeliest date for the play. But whether in 1624 or 1625 (and it must be one of these years) it was first acted, the advocates of Shakespeare's part-authorship are now reduced to the hypothesis that a play begun by Shakespearewas left unnoticed for some dozen years, although a similarly unfinished play had been finished and acted twelve seasons before, and a collected edition of Shakespeare's works had been issued in the interim, in which had been included every available portion of his writings.[14]I cannot believe this; nor can I think that if Shakespeare were really concerned in this play it would have been put forth in 1625 with so modest a Prologue. This might have suited while he lived, but nine years after his death, and two years after his collected works had been published, it is incredible. With the highest respect then for the eminent æsthetic critics who hold that Shakespeare did write part of this play, I must withdraw my adhesion, and state my present opinion that there is nothing in it above the reach of Massinger and Fletcher, but that some things in it (ii. 1a; iv. 3) are unworthy of either, and more likely to be by some inferior hand, W. Rowley for instance. The popular instinct has always been on this side; editions containing this play have not been sought after; and had it not beenknownnot to have been Shakespeare's, it would surely have been gathered up with the W. S. plays in the Folio of 1663.

FOOTNOTES:[12]This name occurs inApollonius and Sylla, of which more hereafter.[13]Compare with this Masque, that by Beaumont written for the Inner Temple, 1613.1. "Thy banks with pioned and twilled brims" (Tempest)."Bordered with sedges and water flowers" (Inner Temple Masque)."Naiades with sedged crowns" (Tempest).2. "Blessing ... and increasing" (Tempest)."Blessing and increase" (Inner Temple Masque).3. The main part played by Iris in both.4. The dance of the Naiads in both. Many of the properties could be utilised in both performances.[14]PericlesandEdward III.are no exceptions to this statement; the copyrights of both belonged to other publishers, and were retained by these after the Folio was issued.

[12]This name occurs inApollonius and Sylla, of which more hereafter.

[13]Compare with this Masque, that by Beaumont written for the Inner Temple, 1613.1. "Thy banks with pioned and twilled brims" (Tempest)."Bordered with sedges and water flowers" (Inner Temple Masque)."Naiades with sedged crowns" (Tempest).2. "Blessing ... and increasing" (Tempest)."Blessing and increase" (Inner Temple Masque).3. The main part played by Iris in both.4. The dance of the Naiads in both. Many of the properties could be utilised in both performances.

[13]Compare with this Masque, that by Beaumont written for the Inner Temple, 1613.

[14]PericlesandEdward III.are no exceptions to this statement; the copyrights of both belonged to other publishers, and were retained by these after the Folio was issued.

ON THE MARLOWE GROUP OF PLAYS.

1 Henry VI.was acted as a new play at the Rose by Lord Strange's men 3d March 1592. It is evidently written by several hands. No successful attempt has yet been made to discriminate these; yet it will be found that on this discrimination depends the elucidation of so many difficult circumstances of Shakespeare's early career, that no apology is required for giving to this play an amount of consideration which it would not deserve on account of its intrinsic merits. It is convenient to commence our investigation by a brief summary of the historical parts contained in the play.

The capital letters prefixed to these dates will enable us to follow readily the arrangement of these events in the play. The A. group, comprising i. 1. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, is manifestly by one writer. The time limits of his scenes are 1422 and 1426: the first scene contains allusions to events of a subsequent date, thrust in for dramatic effect without regard either to historical accuracy or the internal consistency of the play. Specially the battle of Patay, the crowning of Charles, and the revolt of the French towns may be noted. It is hardly requisite to do more than read the opening speech to see that the author of these scenes was Marlowe. It may be noticed, however, that in these scenes, and in these only, we find Gloster (Gloucester elsewhere), Reynold (Reignier or Reigneir elsewhere), and Roän (monosyllabic elsewhere). All these scenes are laid in London.

The B. group, i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, ii. 1. 2. 3, iii. 4, iv. 1., contains only events that happened between 1427 and 1430, the scene being laid at Orleans, Auvergne, or Paris. The bit of the battle of Patay iii. 2. 103-108, thrust into the midst of scenes at Rouen in 1435, would probably belong to this group. It seems to be a preparation for iv. 1, stuck for dramatic purposes in a position historically most incongruous. The author of these scenes isnot easy to identify: his work is rather colourless, yet minor coincidences with the known work of Robert Greene and Thomas Kyd point to one of them as the writer. In this group only we find the spellings: Joane de Puzel (Pucelle elsewhere), Reigneir (occasionally also Reignier), and Gloucester (Gloster elsewhere, except in one instance, where Glocester is probably a misprint). There can be no doubt that these scenes are all by one author, and that not the writer of group A., but very far inferior.

Group C., iii. 2. 3, is very like Group B. in general handling, but has some marked characteristics: here, and here only, we find Burgonie (Burgundy or Burgundie elsewhere) and Roan monosyllabic; Pucelle (Puzel in Group B.) and Joane (Jone in Group D.) also differentiate it from these groups. The time is 1435, place Rouen. I conjecture the author to have been George Peele.

Group D. v. 2-5 is made up of the Joan of Arc story of 1430-1 and the Margaret match of 1443. This group has Gloucester invariably (Gloster in Group A.), Jone (Joane in B., C.), Reignier (never Reigneir, as B.) The author of these scenes is without doubt Thomas Lodge. His versification is unmistakable, and the phrase "cooling card" occurs inMarius and Sylla, the older plays ofJohnandLeir(both times in parts by Lodge). It has not been traced in Greene, Peele, or Marlowe.

Before considering Group E., iv. 2-7, which is concerned only with Talbot's last fight near Bourdeaux in 1452, I would draw attention to the fact that it is clear that this episode did not form part of the original play: it is merely connected with it by the two lines, v. 2. 16, 17, which may have been inserted for that purpose; belongs chronologically to the next play, and is so different from, as well as so superior to, its surroundings, that in 1876 I suggested that Shakespeare might have written it. Mr. Swinburne has since sanctioned this opinion by adopting it. This, however, is not evidence; what follows is. The scenes in the Folio are not divided in Acts i., ii.; in the other Acts they are. Acts iii. and iv. 1 coincide with the modern division; but v. 1 of the modern editors is iv. 2 in the Folio; v. 2. 3. 4, are iv. 3 in the Folio, and v. 5 in the Folio is the whole fifth Act. Here then is the play completed without iv. 2-7,which are not numbered at all. It is plain that they were written subsequently to the rest of the play and inserted at a revival. They had to be inserted in such a manner as not to break the connection between this play and2 Henry VI., and were put in the most convenient place, regardless of historicsequence. I take it for granted that this play in its original shape was acted before2 Henry VI., the commencement of which was evidently meant to fit on to the end of the preceding play. It is in accordance with the hypothesis here announced (that the play acted 3d March 1592 was new only in these Talbot scenes,) that we find Nash in hisPiers Penniless(S. R. 8th August 1592) referring only to the Talbot scenes as new. "How it would have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to think that after he had lain two hundred year in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his bones embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at least." It was acted thirteen times at the Rose between March 3 and June 22, that is, at least once a week; was the most popular play of the season, and was probably still in action "about the city" or in the country during the time that the theatres were closed for the plague, from 22d June 1592 till January 1593, when it was again played at the Rose. It was, therefore, in action when Greene's celebrated address "to those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plays," was written. This address was published in Greene'sGroatsworth of Witafter 2d September, when Greene died, and before 8th December, when Chettle'sKind-Hart'sDreamwas entered on S. R., and was probably written about June. It is addressed to Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele. Attempts have been made to show that Nash, not Lodge, was the second playwright of this trio, on the ground that Lodge was too old to be called "young Juvenal" or "sweet boy;" was absent from England; was not a satirist, and had foresworn writing for the theatre. The only important argument is that of Lodge's age. As this is important in other respects, I give here a table of the known birth dates, matriculations, B.A. and M.A. degrees, and first appearances as authors of the University men connected at that time with the stage:—

It will be seen from the above table that the degree of B.A. was usually taken at eighteen or nineteen; that Lodge and Greene were probably of about the same age; and if we may judge from Greene's slowness in obtaining his M.A. degree, that he was not speedy in fulfilling the earlierUniversity requirements. Greene was probably the elder. At any rate, Lodge's age in 1592 was about thirty-three, surely not too old for one of about his own age to call "boy." He was a satirist before 1592.The Looking-glass for Londonis bitter enough for any "young Juvenal." On the other hand, Nash was certainly not the "biting satyrist that lastly with me [Greene] wrote a comedy." He had at the time of Greene's death written no comedy whatever: his first connection with the stage was hisSummer's Last Will, acted at Archbishop Whitgift's, in November 1592. Lodge, we know, had written with GreeneThe Looking-glass, and there is strong internal evidence of his having a hand inGeorge-a-GreeneandJames IV.Nor could the statement that "those puppits that speak from our mouths, those anticks garnished in our colours," had "all been beholding" to you, be with any consistency applied to Nash. Greene was evidently addressing the principal playwrights of the time, and, if my present view is a true one, he seized the opportunity of Shakespeare's having made "new additions" to a play in which all of them had been concerned to endeavour to create an ill-feeling between "the upstart crow beautified with our feathers" and those of the University men, who had hitherto enjoyed a monopolyof writing for the stage, or nearly so. To have omitted Lodge in such an attempt would have been weak; to have included Nash, absurd. The effect of Greene's address was not what he desired. Peele had probably already been a coadjutor of Shakespeare, and Marlowe immediately, and no doubt Lodge later on, joined Shakespeare's company and wrote for them. In Greene's excuse must be considered how galling it must have been to a man in poverty and bad health to see a play which, while he was connected with it, had attracted little notice, suddenly raised to the highest success by the insertion of a few scenes written by a "Johannes factotum," a "Shakescene," who was "able to bombast out a blank verse" without being "Magister in artibus utriusque universitatis." Confirmations of my views as to this play will be found in the succeeding ones. The scene ii. 4 has long been recognised as so far superior to the rest of the play as to be probably due to the hand of Shakespeare at a later date, c. 1597-8.

2 Henry VI.—This play exists in two forms: one in the 1623 Folio, hereafter for convenience called F.; the other in Quarto, entered S. R. 12th March 1594, hereafter called Q. It was published in 1594 asThe First part of the Contention betwixtthe two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster. This Quarto version is a mangled and probably surreptitious copy of the original play, greatly abbreviated for acting. The play as first written will be hereafter called O. But F. and O. are not identical, although in many parts O. was more like F. than Q. It will be convenient to enter on the proof that O. was revised and altered before beginning the discussion of the authorship of either version, which is the most difficult, if not the most important, problem in Shakespearian criticism.

In the Folio of 1623 a list is given of the principal actors in Shakespeare's plays. The method in which this list is arranged has never been pointed out. It is chronological. The first ten names are those of the originalmenactors when the Chamberlain's company was instituted in 1594; the next five were added not later than 1603; the next five (excepting Field, who is inserted here from his early connection with Underwood and Ostler) c. 1610; the final six after 1617. By a comparison of this list with the names of the actors inThe Seven Deadly Sins, originally acted before 1588, but the extant plot of which dates c. 1594, we shall get the evidence we want. The first seven names in the Folio list are (1.) W. Shakespeare, (2.) R. Burbadge, (3.) J. Hemmings, (4.) A. Phillips,(5.) W. Kempe, (6.) J. Pope, (7.) G. Bryan. The last five of these we know to have been members of Lord Strange's company in 1593. In the7. D. S.we find neither Shakespeare nor Hemmings; but we do find (2.) R. Burbadge, (4.) Mr. Phillips, (5.) Will Foole, (6.) Mr. Pope, (7.) Mr. Bryan. It will be noticed that the prefix Mr. is confined to members of Lord Strange's company. Next in the Folio list come (8.) Henry Condell, (9.) William Sly, (10.) Richard Cowley. These appear in7. D. S.as (8.) Harry, (9.) W. Sly, (10.) R. Cowley. At this point we are struck with the fact that Harry, Will, and Dick are names of three Cade conspirators in Q., and naturally try to see if the other names, Nick, Jack, Robin, Tom, and George, occur in7. D. S.For it is certain that in very early plays up to the end of the sixteenth century it was frequently the case that the actors in plays are designated by their proper christian names. We do find (11.) Nick (i.e., Nicholas Tooley, a boy-actor in 1597, but a man c. 1610 in the Folio of 1623), (12.) John Duke, (13.) Robert Pallant, (14.) Thomas Goodall; but George,i.e., G. Peele, is not there discoverable. I may notice that Duke and Pallant, like Beeston, all three of whom left the Chamberlain's men for the Earl of Derby's in 1599, are excluded from the Folio list. On turningto another play,Sir Thomas More, c. 1596, the only other one that can give us similar information on the same scale, I find (8.) Harry, (13.) Robin, (14.) T. Goodall, (15.) Kit (i.e., Christopher Beeston), and two boys, (16.) Ned and (17.) a second Robin,i.e., Robert Gough, who occurs in the Folio list as a man c. 1617. In the7. D. S. these latter correspond to (15.) Kitt, (16.) Ned, (17.) R. Go. InSir T. Morethere are two other names of this kind, Giles and Rafe. Of Giles nothing more is known, but Rafe Raye is mentioned in Henslowe'sDiaryas a Chamberlain's man in 1594. A further examination of older plays leads to little additional information; but what is to be found all confirms the opinion that I had formed (as will be seen), on other grounds, that2 Henry VI.was written for the Queen's men. Thus in plays known to have belonged to that company, I find inThe Famous Victories, (12.) John, (13.) Robin, (14.) Tom, (16.) Ned and Lawrence; inOrlando, (14.) Tom and Rafe (Raye); inFriar Bacon, (10.) Dick, (14.) Tom; and inJames IV., Andrew. There is no Andrew in our lists, but one occurs inMuch Ado About Nothing, iv. 2, 1597-8, in place of Kempe: apparently a remnant of the older form ofLove's Labour's Wonbefore Kempe undertook the part. But our list of the7. D. S.is not yet exhausted: (18.) Sander (a boy-player, but the same as Alexander Cooke, a man in 1603 in the Folio list), (19.) T. Belt, and (20.) Will (another boy), occur inThe Taming of a Shrew, 1588. Of (21.) Vincent, nothing is known; but (22.) J. Sinkler acted with Gabriel (Spenser) and Humfrey (Jeffes) in3 Henry VI., which belonged to Pembroke's company. Now as the last two, with Antony Jeffes and Robert Shaw, appear in Henslowe'sDiaryfor the first time immediately after the partial breaking up of Pembroke's company and their juncture with the Admiral's in October 1597, it is morally certain that Sinkler had gone to the Chamberlain's, and Spenser Shaw and the two Jeffes to the Admiral's, at or before that date. I feel, therefore, justified in concluding that the7. D. S.gives us a nearly complete list of the Chamberlain's actors, formed of Lord Strange's players as a nucleus; such of the Queen's men as joined them in 1591-2, when they obtained many Queen's plays (see p. 108), and such of Pembroke's as joined them in 1594, when they obtained Pembroke's plays (see p. 21). I have omitted only one name, and the absolute coincidence of nearly every one of the rest with the lists obtained from other sources is too remarkable to be the mere effect of accident: in fact, the chances are many millions to one against this being thecase. The one name omitted is (23.) John Holland. This name occurs nowhere else to my knowledge, but in the7. D. S.plot and2 Henry VI., Act iv. in the Folio, where he replaces Nick of the Quarto. There can be no doubt of this being an actor's name; and its occurrence shows at once that the Cade part of the play was revised, and that the revision was probably made after 1594. Had it been earlier, there would have been two Johns in the company, Duke and Holland, and Duke would not have been called simply Jack.

If the above conclusions are well founded,2 Henry VI.was originally written for the Queen's men as a continuation of1 Henry VI., and, like the latter-mentioned play, passed into the hands of Lord Strange's men in 1591-2, but was not, like it, then revised; or it may, likeGeorge a Greene, have passed to Sussex' men; from them, likeTitus Andronicus, to Pembroke's; and thence to the Chamberlain's. It is noticeable that although published in Quarto by the same person, Millington, who published3 Henry VI.as theTrue Tragedy of Richard Duke of Yorkin 1595, he put no name of acting company on the former play, as he did that of Pembroke's on the latter. This distinctly shows that the original companies for whom these plays were written were not identical, and thatthat of2 Henry VI.was probably unknown to Millington. As to the authorship of2 Henry VI., it will be well to make F. the basis of investigation, always having in mind the possibility of passages having been inserted by the ultimate reviser. The corruption and omission in Q. caused by the shortening for stage purposes have been so great, that the usual plan of beginning with Q. becomes altogether misleading. The example of1 Henry VI.induces me to attach great weight to the chronological arrangement of the historical facts. Henry's marriage in 1445 forms the subject of i. 1, evidently written by Greene originally. The word "alderliefest" in 1. 28 should specially be noted: it is used by Greene in hisMourning Garment, and "aldertruest" in hisJames IV.Such words are not found in Marlowe, Peele, Lodge, or Shakespeare; yet here one occurs in a passage found in F. but not in Q., plainly indicating omission in Q., not addition in F. The next portion, i. 2-ii. 4, is concerned with the banishment of the Duchess of Gloster, 1441, and the story of Saunder Simcox, 1441, with which is incorporated the accusation of the armourer for high treason, 1446. This part (except i. 3. 45-103) is mainly by George Peele, but much altered in the F. revision. Peele his mark, "sandy plains," occurs in i. 4. 39. The Simcox anecdote,however, ii. 1. 59-153, which is quite unconnected with the rest of the play, is more like Kyd's work than Peele's, and may have been written by him. The exceptional bit, i. 3. 45-103, to the conversation in which no historical date can be assigned, is manifest Marlowe; a preparation for iii. 1-iv. 1, which is beyond question by him. The events in this section are (iii. 1a) the accusation and (iii. 2) murder of Gloster in 1447; (iii. 3) the banishment of Suffolk, 1447; (iii. 3) the death of Winchester in 1447; (iii. 1b) the Irish insurrection in 1449; and, finally, (iv. 1) the death of Suffolk in 1450. These scenes are the salt of the play. The opening lines of iv. 1, the description in iii. 2. 160, &c., the awful pathos of the death of Winchester, are from the same hand as the end ofDoctor Faustus. The differences of Q. and F. in this portion are mostly due to omissions in Q.: iii. 3, for instance, could not have been left in the state in which Q. has it by the meanest of the authors of the play: it is cut down by some illiterate actor. That revision there has been is, however, plain from the singular circumstance that in iii. 2 Elianor is given for Margaret as the Queen's name. This is probably due to Marlowe's almost simultaneous work on the olderJohn, in which Queen Elianor is a prominent character. It would seem that therevisor missed this scene, although correcting Margaret properly in the others. It is no printer's error; for in l. 26 we have "Nell," for which some modern editors euphoniously substitute "Meg." The rest of the play, iv. 2-v. 3, is by one hand, and that hand Lodge's. The notion that Greene wrote it arises from want of discriminating Greene's work from Lodge's inThe Looking-glass for London, all the better part of which is by Lodge. I fear that those who underrate the powers of this elegant and (in his own line) powerful writer estimate him by his earliest dramatic effort,Marius and Sylla. He should be read in hisGlaucusandRosalynde; and his evident wish to avoid being known as a dramatic writer should be taken into account. That he did continue to write plays for many years, I have no doubt, but the evidence is too extensive to be given here. This part of the play includes Cade's insurrection, 1450, and the battle of St. Albans, 1455.

As regards the date, &c., of revision, see under the next play.

3 Henry VI.is of very different character from the two preceding plays. If read in the F. version, no change of authorship is perceptible; all is consistent; and if the Q. version had not come downto us, no one would have suspected a second author. It is plainly by Marlowe, but the Marlowe ofEdward II., not ofFaustus, later in date than2 Henry VI.F. is nearly if not quite identical with the original play. Q. is not, as in the case of the preceding play, an abridgment for the stage made by the actors, but one made for the same purpose, carefully and accurately, apparently by the author himself. The reason for this difference in the treatment of the plays is manifest.3 Henry VI.was, as we know from the title-page, acted by Pembroke's men, and F. is printed from a prompter's copy, in which the names of Gabriel [Spenser], Humphrey [Jeffes], and [John] Sinkler appear in the stage directions; and they were actors for that company. There is not a particle of evidence that this stage copy was ever altered in any way after the Chamberlain's company acquired it. A careful examination of such passages as ii. 5, the stronghold of the revision theory, shows too much coincidence between Q. and F. for any likelihood of rewriting having taken place, except by way of abridgment in Q. But in2 Henry VI.things are quite different: the Greene and Marlowe parts are merely abridged in Q., and the Peele a good deal revised in F. as well as abridged in Q.; but the Lodge part at the end is absolutely rewritten inthe St. Alban's battle, and the very names of the actors are changed in the Cade insurrection. Who could have done this but Shakespeare? Here, and here only, can we find an explanation of the inclusion of these plays in the Folio edition of his works in 1623. In my opinion the history of the plays is this: About 1588-9, Marlowe plotted, and, in conjunction with Kyd (or Greene), Peele, and Lodge, wrote1 Henry VI.for the Queen's men. About 1589 the same authors wrote2 Henry VI.; in that year I have ascertained that Marlowe left the Queen's men, and in 1590 joined Pembroke's, for whom he alone wrote3 Henry VI.In 1591-2 the Queen's men were in distress, and sold, among other plays,1 Henry VI.to Lord Strange's men, who produced it in 1592 with Shakespeare's Talbot additions as a new play. In the autumn of that year or in 1593-4, when the companies travelled on account of the plague, they cut down their plays for country representation; among others,2 Henry VI.(altered by some illiterate) and3 Henry VI.(abridged by Marlowe himself). On this point compare the parallel instances of abridged plays,Hamlet,Orlando, andThe Guise. In May 15932 Henry VI.passed to the Sussex' men withLeir, &c., when the Queen's men broke up; in February 1594 withAndronicusto Pembroke's; in April,when Pembroke's company partly dissolved, all three plays were reunited in the hands of the Chamberlain's men; and for them2 Henry VI.was, c. 1600, after Lodge had retired, remodelled by Shakespeare, and3 Henry VI.corrected—the other authors, Peele, Marlowe, (Kyd?), and Greene, having died before 1598. Meanwhile Millington published2 Henry VI.Q. asYork and Lancaster, and3 Henry VI.Q. asRichard Duke of York, these abridged copies having become useless to Pembroke's men on the ceasing of the plague and of their travels.

I have not noticed here the many parallel passages from the works of Marlowe and others which confirm the assignment of authorship now advocated. It would be out of all proportion to give them here unless imperfectly: the reader will find some in Dyce'sMarlowe, and more in my edition ofEdward II.Nor have I noticed the schoolboy interpretation that explains "their" inHenry V., Epil. l. 13, as referring to2and3 Henry VI.: "their,"more Shakespeariano, like "they" in the previous line, refers in form to the "many" of l. 12, but in meaning to the actors of1 Henry VI., in which play, and not in3 Henry VI., the loss of France is treated of. It is also most unlikely that the 1600 edition ofThe Duke of Yorkshould have been issued as played by Pembroke's servants if the play hadbeen previously acted by the Chamberlain's. Compare the parallel case ofAndronicus. Miss Lee's statement, "Greene wrote, Nash tells us," more than four others "for Lord Pembroke's company," is absolutely without foundation. Nash says "the company" (Apology, 1593), and evidently alludes to the Queen's men, for whomOrlando,Bacon,Selimus, andThe Looking-glasswere written. In fact, Greene's only known connection with any other company was his fraudulent selling ofOrlandoa second time to the Admiral's. Marlowe, and he alone, isknownas a writer for Pembroke's: Kyd may have been, however, and in my opinion was, a contributor to their stage.

Richard III.is closely connected with3 Henry VI., and written with direct reference to it. In i. 2. 158, iv. 2. 98, iv. 4. 275, scenes in that play are plainly alluded to. Nor is it possible, if the two plays be read in immediate sequence, to avoid the feeling that they have a common authorship. On the other hand, a closer analysis shows that inRichardthe Latin quotations, classical allusions, and peculiar animal similes which are characteristic ofHenryhave entirely disappeared. There are also discrepancies, such as Gray's fighting for the Lancastrians, i. 3. 130, whereas in3 Henry VI., iii.2. 2, he is represented as a Yorkist, which shows a different hand in the two plays.Richard III.has always been regarded as entirely Shakespeare's, and its likeness to3 Henry VI.has more than anything else kept alive the untenable belief that this last-named play was also, in part or wholly, written by our greatest dramatist. Yet the unlikeness ofRichard III.to the other historical plays of Shakespeare, and the impracticability of finding a definite position for it, metrically or æsthetically, in any chronological arrangement, have made themselves felt. Even cautious Mr. Halliwell says, "There are slight traces of an older play to be observed, passages which belong to an inferior hand;" and again, "To the circumstance of an anterior work having been used do we owe some of its weakness and excessively turbulent character" (Outlines, 94). A careful examination of the editions will be found to confirm and extend this conclusion. The 1597 Quarto Q1, which is evidently an abridged version made for the stage, and which no doubt was the version acted during nearly all Elizabeth's reign, differs from the Folio in a way not to be paralleled in any other Shakespearian play. Minute alterations have been made in almost every speech, in a fashion which could not have been customary with him who uttered his thoughts so easily as scarcely to makea blot (i.e.alteration) in his papers. The question of anteriority of the Q. and F. versions has been hotly debated on æsthetic grounds; but the mere expurgation of oaths and metrical emendations in F. are enough to show that it is the later version, probably made c. 1602; while the fact that it was preferred by the editors of the 1623 Folio shows that they considered it the authentic copy of Shakespeare's work. In other instances,Macbeth,The Tempest, &c., they have indeed given us abridged editions; but there is neither proof nor likelihood that any other were accessible. We do not know what original copies were destroyed in the Globe fire of 1613, and should be thankful for such versions as we have, which were probably the acting versions used at Blackfriars. But in this case the editors had at hand the Quartos, and unless they thought the Folio more authentic, I cannot see why they preferred it. Furthermore, the F. version appears to have been defective in some places; for v. 3. 50, end of play, and iii. 1. 17-165, are certainly printed from Q3(1602). This has been controverted, but on very insufficient grounds. Now directly we compare the Folio and Quarto versions, we meet with evidence that alteration and correction have been largely used in both of them. For instance, Derby is found as acharacter in the play in i. 1, ii. 1, 2, iv. 5, v. 5, in both versions; in iii. 1. 2, iv. 1, v. 2, he is called Stanley. This shows correction by a second hand. In iv. 1, while Stanley has been inserted in the text, Derby remains in the prefixes; v. 3 is only partially corrected, and both names occur. The names were not used indifferently, for in iv. 2, 4, we find Stanley in F. but Derby in Q. This shows a progressive correction in which Q. precedes F. It may be noticed that Darby is the original author's spelling. In like manner,Gloster, the original prefix, has in i. 1, 2, 3, ii. 1. 2, iii. 4, 5, 7, been replaced in F. byRichard, but in iii. 1, in the part printed from Q3, and there only,Glosterremains. So again Margaret is indicated in the older version byQu. Mar.,Qu. M., &c., but neverMar., as in F. iv. 4. In F. i. 3 we find by side ofMar.a remainder of the older form inQ. M.This is not an exhaustive statement, but sufficient I think to show that alterations were made, as I suggest. There can be little doubt that in this, as inJohn, Shakespeare derived his plot and part of his text from an anterior play, the difference in the two cases being that inRichard III.he adopted much more of his predecessor's text. I believe that the anterior play was Marlowe's, partly written for Lord Strange's company in 1593, butleft unfinished at Marlowe's death, and completed and altered by Shakespeare in 1594. It was no doubt on the stage when, on 19th June 1594, the older play onRichard III., "with the conjunction of the two Houses of Lancaster and York," was entered S. R. That was acted by the Queen's players. The unhistorical but grandly classical conception of Margaret, the Cassandra prophetess, the Helen-Ate of the House of Lancaster, which binds the whole tetralogy into one work, is evidently due to Marlowe, and the consummate skill with which he has fused the heterogeneous contributions of his coadjutors in the two earlierHenry VI.plays is no less worthy of admiration. I do not think it possible to separate Marlowe's work from Shakespeare's in this play—it is worked in with too cunning a hand; but wherever we findDarby,Qu. M.,Glo., &c., we may be sure that some of his handiwork is left. Could any critic, if the olderJohnwere destroyed, tell us which lines had been adopted in the later play? Nor can I enter, unless in a special monograph, on the relations of the Quartos to each other. The question is of no importance, and I need only say that the usual corruptions take place from Q1to Q5, and that inQ6(1622) many readings are found agreeing with F. which are not in the other Quartos. The same phenomenon is observed in the 1619 edition ofThe Whole Contention, and far too much has been made of it. It merely indicates correction by attendance at the theatre and picking up a few words during the action. The only Quartos deserving special notice are Q1, as containing Shakespeare's first "additions," and Q3, as having been used in printing part of F. I do not think the allusion in Weever'sEpigrams, written 1595-6, is to this play. It may be so.

Back to Index Next