A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare

Chapter VIII: Section IV (1)

Text size

THE CHRONOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS.

IT is of the greatest importance, in investigating the chronological succession of an author's works, that we should start from a definite and certain date. The neglect of this point, especially in so difficult an instance as the present, involves us too often in thorny discussions at the very onset. Such an epoch is presented us at once by the publication of Shakespeare's earliest poem. I begin therefore at this point.

_Venus and Adonis_ was entered on S. R. 18th April 1593 by Richard Field, printer, son of Henry Field, tanner, of Stratford-on-Avon, who parted with his copyright to Mr. Harrison, senior, 25th June 1594. There were editions in 1593, 1594 (R. Field); 1596 (R. Field for J. Harrison); 1599 and 1602, _bis_ (W. Leake); 1617 (W. Barrett); and 1620 (J. Parker). Harrison had assigned his copyright to Leake 25th June 1596. It was transferred to W. Barrett 16th February 1616-17; and again to J. Parker 8th March 1620. This was "the first heir of my invention," which means--the first production in which I have had no co-labourer. Compare Ford's expression "the first-fruits of my leisure" applied to _'Tis pity she's_ &c., although he had certainly at that time written plays in connection with Dekker and others.

_Lucrece._ Entered on 9th May 1594 in S. R. by Mr. Harrison, senior. Editions 1594 (R. Field for J. Harrison); 1598 (P. S. for J. Harrison); 1600 (J. H. for J. Harrison); 1607 (N. O. for J. Harrison); 1616 (T. G. for R. Jackson). This poem is a pendant to the former; the one exhibiting woman's chastity, the other her lust. Such opposition of subject in successive productions is very characteristic of Shakespeare.

_A Lover's Complaint_, published with the _Sonnets_ 1609, written probably 1593-4, between the _Venus_ and _Lucrece_.

_Sonnets_, entered on S. R. 20th May 1609 for T. Thorpe. I have on pp. 25, 120 already stated my opinion that these were written during 1594-8.

_Titus Andronicus_ was a new play in 1594, acted for the first time by Sussex' men at the Rose on 23d January.

_Richard III._ was no doubt acted this same year by the Chamberlain's men; just before the old play which had been acted by the Queen's players was published (S. R. 19th June 1594). A _Richard_ is alluded to in John Weever's _Epigrams_, published 1599, when the author was twenty-three, but written when he was not twenty; they must therefore date at latest in 1596 (not 1595 as usually stated). Weever mentions _Venus and Adonis_, _Lucrece_, _Romeo_, and _Richard_ as the issue of honey-tongued Shakespeare. We shall see that _Romeo_, as referred to here, was acted in 1595-6, and I believe the _Richard_ referred to is the _Richard II._ of 1595. _Edward III._ I have shown in p. 118 to be an alteration of an old play of Marlowe's written in 1590, revived in 1594 about the autumn, after _Lucrece_ was published. It will be most convenient to defer the consideration of authorship of the preceding plays till I have to treat of _Henry VI._; the dates of editions of all the plays will be exhibited in tabular form further on, which will save much repetition and interruption of argument. We now come to an unquestionable date; and it is from this, the first recorded date in connection with an undoubted play, that I wish the reader to regard our investigation of play dates as beginning.

1594.

December 28. Shakespeare's only farcical comedy of _Errors_ was acted at Gray's Inn at night: the same players had acted before the Queen at Greenwich on that day, very likely in the same comedy. In April 1595 the English agent in Edinburgh wrote to Burghley, how ill King James took it that the comedians in London should scorn the king and people of Scotland in their plays. The barrenness of Scotland is mentioned in iii. 2. Neither would James approve of a play in which witchcraft and exorcising is so constantly ridiculed. The opening scene is very like in method to that of _Midsummer-Night's Dream_; and the reiterated allusions by either Dromio to being transformed to an ass (ii. 2. 201; iii. 1. 15; iv. 4. 28; iii. 2. 77) remind us so strongly of that play as almost to infer contemporaneity of production; especially as in iii. 1. 47 the same quibble, an _ass_ and _ace_, occurs as in _Midsummer-Night's Dream_, v. 1. 317. Now in 1593, in his _Pierce's Supererogation_, and in 1592 in his _Four Letters_, Gabriel Harvey had rung the changes on _an ass_ and _a Nash_ even to wearisomeness; just as Shakespeare in this play puns on _an ell_ and _a Nell_ (iii. 2. 112). This may seem very forced; but I must remind the reader, that _s_ and _sh_ were not distinguished in pronunciation except by pedants at the end of the sixteenth century. It seems then most likely that in dwelling on this transformation, Shakespeare meant to recall to his audience the dyslogistic name inflicted on his old enemy Nash by Gabriel Harvey. All this points to a production of the play in 1594, by the Chamberlain's men; but there are also indications of its having been altered from an earlier version. In the stage directions there are traces of the name Juliana[12] for Luciana: in the text Dowsabel occurs instead of Nell, and in v. 1, the prefix _Fat._ (Father) has been clearly replaced by _Mar._ (Merchant) in a revision; note especially v. 1. 195, where both prefixes have by a common printer's error been inserted at once. The older form, again, had Antipholus Sereptus for A. of Syracuse, and Erotes or Erratis for A. of Ephesus; and it had twenty-five years of separation between the parents for thirty-three in the later version. This last difference occurs in i. 1, which is throughout written in a more mechanical and antique style of metre than the rest of the play; and indeed seems to be one of the earliest specimens left us of Shakespeare's attempts to bombast out a blank verse. There is also the name Menaphon (v. 1. 368), which is likely to have been adopted from Greene's _Menaphon_ (1589), who again took it from Marlowe's _Tamberlaine_ (1587-8). The Adam "that goes in the calf-skin," surely alludes to the Adam in the _Looking-glass for London_ (1590), whose "calf-skin jests" were even after seven years an object of ridicule to the playwrights. For all these reasons I believe that a version of this play was acted c. 1590, perhaps in the winter of that year. It does not follow that that version was entirely by Shakespeare, as the present play is; he may have replaced a coadjutor's work of 1590 by his own of 1594. The plot, with its time-unity, is not likely to be of his arranging. As to the pun on the war made by France against her heir (iii. 2. 126), which is usually relied on for the date of production, it merely gives as limits August 1589, when the war of succession began, and 27th February 1594, when Henri IV. was crowned. It does, however, enable us to say positively that the first performance of the play was before the formation of the Chamberlain's company, who only revived it, no doubt in an amended shape, on 28th December 1594, most likely for the sake of the Court performance. The original plot was probably suggested by Plautus' _Menæchmi_ and _Amphitryo_; and perhaps more directly by the _History of Error_ performed by the Chapel children in 1576, which, by the bye, has nothing to do with the _Ferrar_ of the Earl of Sussex' men in 1582. But we cannot assume in these early plays that Shakespeare was the plotter. It is certain, however, that he did afterwards adopt the likeness of twins in _Twelfth Night_ as a means of introducing "errors" on the stage.

1595.

January 26 was the date of the marriage of William Stanley, Earl of Derby, at Greenwich. Such events were usually celebrated with the accompaniment of plays or interludes, masques written specially for the occasion not having yet become fashionable. The company of players employed at these nuptials would certainly be the Chamberlain's, who had, so lately as the year before, been in the employ of the Earl's brother Ferdinand. No play known to us is so fit for the purpose as _Midsummer-Night's Dream_, which in its present form is certainly of this date. About the same time Edward Russel, Earl of Bedford, married Lucy Harrington. Both marriages may have been enlivened by this performance. This is rendered more probable by the identity of the Oberon story with that of Drayton's _Nymphidia_, whose special patroness at this time was the newly married Countess of Bedford. That poem contains an allusion to Don Quixote, which could not well have been written till 1612, and certainly not till 1605; but Drayton is known to have constantly altered his poems by way of addition and omission, and no date of original production can in his case be fixed by allusions of this kind. The date of the play here given is again confirmed by the description of the weather in ii. 2. In 1594, and in that year only, is there on record such an inversion of the seasons as is there spoken of. Chute's _Cephalus and Procris_ was entered on S. R., 28th September 1593; Marlowe's _Hero and Leander_, 22d October 1593; Marlowe and Nash's _Dido_ was printed in 1594. All these stories are alluded to in the play. The date of the Court performance must be in the winter of 1594-5. But the traces of the play having been altered from a version for the stage are numerous. There is a double ending. Robin's final speech is palpably a stage epilogue, while what precedes from "_Enter Puck_" to "break of day--_Exeunt_" is very appropriate for a marriage entertainment, but scarcely suited to the stage. In Acts iv. and v., again, we find in the speech-prefixes _Duke_, _Duchess_, _Clown_ for _Theseus_, _Hippolita_, _Bottom_: such variations are nearly always marks of alteration, the unnamed characters being anterior in date. In the prose scenes speeches are several times assigned to wrong speakers, another common mark of alteration. In the Fairies the character of Moth (Mote) has been excised in the text, though he still remains among the _dramatis personæ_. It is not, I think, possible to say which parts of the play were added for the Court performance; but a careful examination has convinced me that wherever _Robin_ occurs in the stage-directions or speech-prefixes scarcely any, if any, alteration has been made; _Puck_, on the contrary, indicates change. The date of the stage play may, I think, be put in the winter of 1592; and if so it was acted, not at the Rose, but where Lord Strange's company were travelling. For the allusion in v. 1. 52, "The thrice three Muses mourning for the death of Learning, late deceased in beggary," to Spenser's _Tears of the Muses_ (1591), or Greene's death, 3d September 1592, could not, in either interpretation, be much later than the autumn of 1592; and the lines in ii. 1. 156--

"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's _Summer'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 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 of _The Taming of a Shrew_ and Peele's _Old 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's _Plutarch_, Life of Theseus, the first in the book, he got Periginia (Perigouna), Aegles, Ariadne, Antiope, and Hippolita; from Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_, also the first in the printed editions, which he afterwards dramatised, Philostrate; from Greene's _James IV._ Oberon. This last name, with Titania's, also occurs in the Queen's _Entertainment_ at 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's _Cambyses_ parodied 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 the _Errors_ itself, and, like it, has no known immediate source for the plot. The Pyramus interlude is clearly based on C. Robinson's _Handfull of Pleasant Delights_ (1584); and some of the fairy story may have been suggested by Montemayor's _Diana_. The line ii. 2. 104, is from Peele's _Edward 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's _Endymion_ in 1588. An absolute downward limit of date is given by a line imitated in _Doctor 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 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 in _Fairy 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., of _Richard III._ being reserved for the present. It is a tragedy like Marlowe's _Edward II._, not a "life and death" history. The _Civil Wars_ of 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 his _History 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." Such _new_ additions 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 carelessly corrected, whence much apparently unShakespearian and halting metre, which is easily set right. The source of the plot is Holinshed's _Chronicle_; "the earlier play on _Richard 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, in _John_, or the _Comedy of Errors_; a sign of early work.

1595.

_The Two Gentlemen of Verona_ is 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 to _Hero and Leander_ in i. 1. 21, iii. 1. 119; and to the pestilence in ii. 1. 20; a still closer approximation is shown to the _Merchant of Venice_, by the mistake of Padua for Milan in ii. 5. 2. If Shakespeare had not, at the time when he finally produced the _Two Gentlemen_, begun his study for the Venetian story, whence this name? It only occurs there, once in _Much Ado_, and in the non-Shakespearian parts of _The 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 preparing _Romeo and Juliet_. That our play lies between the _Errors_ and the _Dream_ on one hand and _The Merchant_ on 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 to _Love's Labour's Won_, and _Love'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--"From _mere_ inequality, 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 of _The Shepherdess Filismena_ in Montemayor's _Diana_, translated in MS. by Young, c. 1583, and of Bandello's _Apollonius and Sylla_ in Rich's _Farewell to Military Profession_ (1581). _Felix and Philiomena_ had been dramatised and acted at Court by the Queen's players, 1584-5. That the revision of _The Two Gentlemen_ was hurriedly performed is clear from the unusually large number of _Exits_ and _Entrances_ that 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 the _Dream_, 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 from _Two Gentlemen_, v. 4. 25, which to me 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's _Knight's Tale_ occurs in the mention of Theseus, iv. 4. 173.

1595-6.

_Romeo and Juliet_ was 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 as _Richard II._ in 1595-6, appears from Weever's _Epigrams_. A correct edition of _Romeo_ appeared in 1599. The relation of these two versions of the play presents a difficult problem. The 1599 Quarto Q_{2} is 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 continued to 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, and _Troylus and Cressida_. Nor does it follow that because it was acted at the Curtain, where Marston mentions it in his _Scourge of Villany_ (S. R. 8th September 1598), that it was _produced_ at that same theatre. Mr. P.A. Daniel has shown, in his Parallel Text Edition, that the 1597 Quarto Q_{1} is 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 Q_{2} is a revised copy made on a text in many places identical with Q_{1} (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 Q_{1} is 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 Q_{2} was a revision made on the text of Q_{1}. 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 of the 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 Q_{1} shows evident signs of being printed from a shortened copy P; Q_{2} is manifestly a revision of a full copy M. The genealogy of the Quartos then stands thus:--

R (_author's first version_).
|
+---+---+
| |
P M
| |
Q_{1} Q_{2}

Q_{2} is, according to this theory, a revised version made on a _complete_ copy of an early version of the play, while Q_{1} is 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 dishonest _employé_ of 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 proposed that meets all the difficulties of the case, Q_{1} is 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 Q_{2}, 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 Q_{2} was revised from an early play note that in i. 1 the servants are nameless in Q_{1}, but have names in the stage directions in Q_{2}; that in 1. 3 the servant is called clown in Q_{1}; that in iii. 5 in Q_{2}, where the prefixes vary between _Lady_ and _Mother_, it is in the unaltered parts that _Mother_ is used as in Q_{1}, but _Lady_ always 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 Q_{1} are omitted in Q_{2}: Mab had become well known in 1595, probably through Drayton's _Nymphidia_. In ii. 2. 144, "I am afraid all this is but a dream," reminds us of similar passages in _Errors_, ii. 2. 184; _Two Gentlemen_, v. 4. 26; and _Dream_, 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 Q_{1} has "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) from _Rhomeo and Julietta_ in Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_. Much unnecessary writing has been expended on this forty-two hours; the plot requires forty-eight. Daniel, in his _Rosamund_ (S. R. February 1591-2), and the author of _Doctor 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 Q_{1} only) in iii. 1, some critics base the conclusion that this play must be subsequent to Saviolo's _Book of Honour_, &c. (S. R. 19th November 1594). I believe that the book referred to is _The Book of Honor and Arms, wherein is discussed the_ CAUSES _of quarrel_,&c. (S. R. 13th December 1589). The same expression occurs in _Love'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 John_ was founded on the old play acted by the Queen's men, called _The Troublesome Reign of King John_. The lines ii. 1. 455-460 are imitated in _Captain Stukeley_ by 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); the _Iron Age_ is 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 of _Troy_. 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 older _John_ he 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 of _Stukeley_ was 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_, or _Jew of Venice_, was no doubt founded on an old play called _The 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, compare _Two Gentlemen_, i. 2) points to a date soon after _John_; and the "merry devil" of ii. 3. 2, a phrase never elsewhere used in Shakespeare, indicates contemporaneity with _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ produced in the winter of 1596. Again, the manifest imitations of this play in _Wily Beguiled_, which I show elsewhere to date in the summer of 1597, give a posterior limit, 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 of _Wily 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 entered _The Merchant or Jew of Venice_ on 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 in _2 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 (_sun_ F.); iii. 2. 75; and _Anthony_, iii. 10. 14. In ii. 4. 425, Preston's _Cambyses_ is ridiculed (cf. _Dream_). There is an imitation of iii. 2. 52 in _Lust's Dominion_ (the _Spanish 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 under _Sir T. More_, 1596. This play, as well as _2 Henry IV._ and _Henry V._, is founded on _The 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 much abridged 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 of _Old._ 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" in _The Merry Devil_. The date of that play is 1597.) The early part i. 1, or. ii. 4, was written before the entry of _1 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 in _3 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 in _Henry 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 Lost_ was 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," and _Queen_ for _Princess_ occurs 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 prefix _Prin._ inserted in the middle of one of the Queen's (Princess's) speeches; and in them only throughout the play is the prefix _Nav._ (Navarre) used for _King_. In iv. 3, the speech of Berowne (l. 290-365) must be mostly assigned to 1597; the repetition of the lines, "From women's eyes ... Promethean fire" is an unmistakable indication of revision (see the similar instances in _Romeo_). 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's _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ in 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 on _Shakespeare and Puritanism_ in _Anglia_, vol. 7.

1597-8.

_Much Ado about Nothing_ is more likely than any other play to be identical with _Love'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. Unlike _Love'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 his _Palladis Tamia_ consists 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 Well_ was 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 in _Ariodante and Geneuora_, acted at Court by the Merchant Tailors' boys in 1582-3. The old German play of Jacob Ayrer, _The Beautiful Phoenicia_ (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 as _Benedick and Beatrice_ in 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 historians much 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.

NAMES OF "IRREGULAR HUMOURISTS" IN--

According to my hypothesis, the original names Oldcastle, Ned Poins, Gadshill, &c., were chiefly taken from _The Famous Victories of Henry V._; all these disappear from the series by ii. 4 of _2 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 of _1_ and _2 Henry IV._ The name Falstaff was no doubt taken from _1 Henry VI._, in which Shakespeare had been writing on March 1592, and which we know from the Epilogue to _Henry V._ to have been revived by 1598 at latest.

1599.

_As You Like It_ was "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 from _Hero 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 the _Robin Hood_ plays acted at the Rose in 1598; Jaques, "the traveller," seems to have been the origin of Jonson's Amorphus in _Cynthia's Revels_, and Touchstone of Cos the whetstone in the same play; compare i. 2. 56. The female characters differed considerably in height, as in _Much Ado_ and _The Dream_. The remarks of Touchstone on quarrels and lies in v. 4 should be compared with _Love'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 of _Totus 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 his _Rosalynde_, on which the play is founded--"if you like it, so," says Lodge--and it is alluded to in the Epilogue (which, like that to _2 Henry IV._, is spoken by a female character), and again by Jonson in the Epilogue to _Cynthia'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 after _Henry 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 to _2 Henry IV._ to introduce him in the _Henry 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 of _2 Henry IV._ and that of this play. The title, _The Merry Wives of Windsor_, suggests approximation in subject with _The 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 of _Wily 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 probably altered 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 the _Passionate Pilgrim_ in 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 in _Much 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 shorthand notes 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 of _Romeo 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 the _Jealous Comedy_, acted as a new play by Shakespeare's company 5th January 1593; that when Shakespeare revived this old play, he accommodated the characters to _Henry IV._ as best he could. Mr. Daniel's argument that _The Merry Wives_ was a later play than _Henry 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 after _Henry 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 prefixes _Qu._, _Qui._, and _Pist._ are mistakes for _Queen_ and _Puck_. 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; _Faustus_ was on the boards till 1597 at least. One of Henry Julius' plays _derived from English sources_, printed in 1594, _The Adulteress_, contains the same story as _The 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's _News out of Purgatory_ (1590). Note that the other play by Julius distinctly traceable in origin to the English stage is _Vincentius Ladislaus_ (1594), in which the similarities to _Much 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 in _Wily 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 in _For 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.

Previous Next

Comments

A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William ShakespeareChapter VIII: Section IV (1)

0%37 min left in chapter