Chapter IX: Section IV (2)

_Julius Cæsar_ is alluded to in Weever's _Mirror of Martyrs_ (Sir John Oldcastle), 1601; and the actor of Polonius in _Hamlet_ iii. 2. 109 had probably acted the part of Cæsar; at any rate _Cæsar_ must be anterior to the Quarto _Hamlet_ which was produced in 1601. The structure of this play is remarkable; the first three acts and last two have no characters in common except Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and Lucius; there are in fact two plays in one, _Cæsar's Tragedy_ and _Cæsar's Revenge_. Contemporary plays by other dramatists were produced in a double pattern: _e.g._, Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_, in two parts; Chapman's _Bussy d'Ambois_, in two parts; Kyd's old play of _Jeronymo_, in two parts. All these were on the stage at the same time as _Julius Cæsar_. Revenge-plays with ghosts in them were the rage for the next four years. That the present play has been greatly shortened, is shown by the singularly large number of instances in which mute characters are on the stage; which is totally at variance with Shakespeare's usual practice. The large number of incomplete lines in every possible position, even in the middle of speeches, confirms this. That alterations were made we have the positive testimony of Jonson, who in his _Discoveries_ tells us that Shakespeare wrote, "Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause" (compare iii. 1. 47). That this original reading stood in the acting copies till not long before the 1623 Folio was printed, is clear from the fact that Jonson, in the Induction to his _Staple of News_ (1625), alludes to it as a well-known line requiring no explanation--"Cry you mercy," says Prologue, "you never did wrong but with just cause." This would imply that Shakespeare did not make the alterations himself; a hypothesis confirmed by the spelling of Antony without an _h_: this name occurs in eight of Shakespeare's plays, and in every instance but this invariably is spelled Anthony. Jonson himself is more likely to have been called on to make this revision than any other author connected with the King's company c. 1622. The "_et tu Brute_" about which so much has been written was probably taken from Jonson's _Every Man out of his Humour_ (i. 1); it is found in the _Duke of York_ (1595) and elsewhere. Nicholson, in his _Acolastus his after wit_ (S. R. 8th September 1600), probably took it from Shakespeare's play, "Et tu Brute! wilt thou stab Cæsar too?"

1601.

_All's Well that Ends Well_ manifestly contains passages--i. 1. 230-244; i. 3. 130-142; ii. 1. 130-214; ii. 3. 80-110, 132-151; iii. 4 letter: v. 3 concluding part--which are of very early date; certainly written not later than 1593. It is not, however, in my opinion, to be identified with _Love's Labour's Won_: the allusions to the present title in iv. 4. 35; v. 1. 24; v. 3. 333, 336, all occur in rhyme passages, and some of them, at least, belong to the earlier date. The play, as we have it, was written after Marston's _Jack Drum's Entertainment_ (1600), to which there is a palpable allusion in iii. 6. 41; and before _The Dutch Courtesan_ (probably 1602) by the same author, which contains several allusions to its title. The name _Corambus_ in iv. 3. 185 suggests the same date, as this is the appellation of Polonius in the Quarto _Hamlet_. The introduction of Violenta, a mute character, in iii. 5, and the substitution of the same name in _Twelfth Night_, i. 5, for Viola, show that this last-named play was the last written of the two, but not much interval could have occurred between them. In confirmation of this approximation of dates, compare the name Capilet, v. 3. 147, 159, with _Twelfth Night_, iii. 4. 315. In plot this play agrees with _Much Ado_ in the supposed death of Helen, and the promise of Bertram to marry Maudlin Lafeu; with _Measure for Measure_, in the substitution of Helen for Diana; with _The Gentlemen of Verona_, in Helen's pilgrim disguise, and her meeting with the Hostess. In it and _Twelfth Night_ we find a few slight allusions to the Puritans; another confirmation of date. The only other use even of the word Puritan is in the late play _Winter's Tale_, iv. 3. 46. Compare the doubtful _Pericles_, iv. 6. 9. The way in which the earthquake is mentioned in i. 3. 91, gives a still further confirmation. There was an earthquake in London in 1601. I take the boasting Parolles to be Marston; born under Mars, muddied in Fortune's displeasure, an egregious coward, an accuser of Captain Dumain of being lousy, he in all points agrees with Marston, as figured in the other satirical plays of the time. The charge against Dumain is repeated against Jonson in _Satiromastix_; Marston had left the Admiral's company in 1599, just before the Fortune Theatre was built for them. His cowardice is dilated on in Jonson's _Conversations_, and the allusions to him as _Jack Drum_ are frequent in the play. Once we find Tom Drum in v. 2 (from _Tom Drum's Vants_ in _Gentle Craft_, 1598), a hint that Thomas Dekker, author of _The Shoemaker's Holiday, or The Gentle Craft_ (1600), was aiding and abetting John Marston in his satirical plays. Helen was acted by a short boy (i. 1. 202). The incident of the King's gift to Helen of his ring, only referred to in the last scene, seems to point at the gift of a ring to Essex by Elizabeth in 1596. Essex was executed in 1601, just before this play was acted. The older parts pointed out above were, I think, incorporated from detached scenes written in 1593 during the plague time, and laid by for future use. The plot is from _Giletta of Narbonne_ in Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_, a book used by Shakespeare in 1594 for his alteration of _Edward III._ Mr. Stokes says that Eccleston and Gough acted in this play, on the authority of Mr. Halliwell; one of the many _ignes fatui_ that have misled this unwary compiler.

1601-2.

_Twelfth Night, or What You Will_, was first acted 2d February 1602 at one of the Inns of Court (Manningham's _Diary_). Its date lies between Marston's _Malcontent_ (1602), (of Malevole in which play Malvolio is clearly a caricature), and _What You Will_ (1602) by the same author. This adoption of the name of his play seems to have induced Shakespeare to replace it by the now universally adopted title. The appellation Rudesby (v. 1. 55) is from Chapman's _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601). Several minor points have been already noticed under the previous play _All's Well_. In this play, as in that, I believe that earlier written scenes have been incorporated. It is only in similar cases that we find such contradictions as that between the three months' sojourn of Viola at the Count's court (v. 1), and the three days' acquaintance with the Duke in i. 4. In ii. 4 there are palpable signs of alteration, and iii. 1. 159-176, v. 1. 133-148 are surely of early date. Moreover, the singular agreement of the plot with the _Comedy of Errors_ in the likeness of the twins, and with _The Gentleman of Verona_, or rather with _Apollonius and Sylla_, whence part of that play was derived, point to a likelihood that the first conceptions of these plays were not far apart in time. I think the early portions were written in 1593, like those of the preceding play. For the change from Duke (i. 1-4) to Count in the rest of the play compare _The Gentlemen of Verona_. I believe that Sir Toby represents Jonson and Malvolio Marston; but that subject requires to be treated in a separate work from its complexity.

1602.

_Troylus and Cressida_ was published surreptitiously in 1609, with an address to the reader stating that it had been "never staled with the stage." This statement was withdrawn in the same year, and a new title-page issued, "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants at the Globe." It had in fact been entered in S. R. 1603, February 7, by J. Roberts, and licensed for printing, "when he hath gotten sufficient authority for it"--which he evidently did not get. It could not therefore have been produced later than 1602. Nor could it, as we have it, have been earlier; the line i. 3. 73, "rank Thersites with his mastic jaws" evidently alluding to Dekker's _Satiro_-MASTIX (1601). I once thought Marston, as _Histriomastix_ or _Theriomastix_, was alluded to; but the character of Thersites suits Dekker, not Marston. Jonson describes him in _The Poetaster_, iii. 1, as "one of the most overflowing _rank_ wits in Rome; he will slander any man that breathes if he disgust him." In 1602, Jonson, Marston, and Shakespeare had become reconciled; of reconciliation with Dekker, at any time, there is no trace. This play is probably the "purge" given by Shakespeare to Jonson when he put down all those "of the university pen" (_The Return from Parnassus_, iv. 3, acted in the winter 1602-3); Ajax representing Jonson, Achilles Chapman, and Hector Shakespeare: but whether this conjecture be true or no, Dekker is certainly Thersites. All this part of the play (the camp story) splits off from the love story of Troylus and Cressida, which is of much earlier date, c. 1593. The two parts are discrepant in minor points, notably in the existence of a truce (i. 3. 262), "dull and long-continued" fighting having been abundant in i. 2. The parts written in 1602 are i. 3; ii. 1; ii. 2; ii. 3; iii. 3. 34 to end; iv. 5. (except lines 12-53); v. i; v. 2 (retains much older work); v. 3. 1-97. All this part bears evident marks of the reading of Chapman's _Iliad_ i.-vii. (1598); the love story is somewhat from the old Troy book printed by Caxton, but more from Chaucer's _Troilus and Cressid_. At the end of v. 3, in the Folio v. 10. 32-34, are repeated; this shows that the 1602 _acting_ copy was meant to end with v. 3, thus making the play a comedy; as it now stands it is usually classed with the tragedies; in the Folio, it is placed unpaged between the Histories and Tragedies, and is not mentioned in the "Catologue" of contents. The prologue and v. 4-10 contain much work that is unlike Shakespeare's, and are probably by some coadjutor whose other lines have been replaced by the 1602 additions. Heywood in his _Iron Age_ treated this same subject, and the date of that play is important in this investigation. The _Ages_ of Heywood were acted before 1611 (see his Address to the Reader in _The Golden Age_); _The Iron Age_ was "publicly acted by two companies on one stage at once," and "at sundry times thronged three several theatres." These were the Rose, the Curtain, and the Bull; Pembroke's men, and the Admiral's, acted together at the Rose, October to November 1597. This must have been the time when the _Iron Age_ was performed; but not as a new play. It would otherwise have been entered in Henslowe's _Diary_ as such. All the _Ages_ were then probably old in 1597. In 1595-6 we find them accordingly entered by Henslowe under other names; in 1595, March 5, _The Golden Age_, whose scenes are in Heaven and Olympus, appears as Steleo (Coelo) and Olempo; he subsequently writes Seleo for Steleo; _The Silver_ and _Brazen Ages_ on May 7 and May 23, as the first and second parts of _Hercules_. These three plays were produced in succession. The entry of _Galfrido and Bernardo_ is a forgery, and a clumsy one, for it necessitates a Sunday performance, which is a thing unknown in Henslowe's _Diary_, if the dates be properly corrected. On 23d June 1596, _Troy_ was acted, palpably _The Iron Age_; and on 7th April 1597, _Five Plays in One_ may have been the second part of that play. About February 1599, Heywood left the Admiral's men, and joined Lord Derby's; in April, Dekker and Chettle produced their _Troylus and Cressida_; in May their _Agamemnon_, and Dekker his _Orestes' Furies_. I believe that all these were merely enlargements of Heywood's _Iron Age_. Dekker was a "dresser of plays" and a shameless plagiarist; witness the stealing of Day's work, which he afterwards reclaimed in his _Parliament of Bees_. At the same time that Dekker was thus pillaging Heywood, his friend Marston was satirising Heywood as Post-haste in _Histriomastix_ for appropriating Shakespeare's _Troylus_ (of 1593) and bringing out _The Prodigal Child_, the old _Acolastus_ of 1540, as a new play. There can be no doubt that the company satirised in _Histriomastix_ is Derby's. It was a "travelling" company, newly set up, with a poet who extemporises his plays (Heywood had a share in 220) and uses

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

The allusion to _Troylus_, 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 to _The Iron Age_ in _John_ iv. 1. 60 (1596).

1603.

_The Taming of the Shrew_ is 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 are replacements 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 to _Patient Grissel_, by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton, December 1599; "curst" in ii. 1. 187, 294, 307; v. 2. 188, to Dekker's _Medicine for a Curst Wife_, July 1602; and iv. 1. 221 to Heywood's _Woman 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 from _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601), and Baptista, as a man's name, could hardly have come under Shakespeare's notice, when in his _Hamlet_ he made it a woman's. The earlier play thus altered probably dates 1596, when an edition of _The Taming of a Shrew_ was reprinted. This last-named play was written for Pembroke's company in 1588-9. Another limit of date is given by the name _Sincklo_ in the Induction. Sinklo was an actor with the Chamberlain's men, from 1597 to 1604. _Nicke_ in 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). This Induction was, I think, greatly altered by Shakespeare in 1603.

1603.

_Hamlet_ is 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 acting _Richard 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 so forth, 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 1603-4 _passim_). 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 of _Dido_, in rivalry of which the player's speech in ii. 2 is recited, belonged to these same Chapel children. In like manner the Pyrgus in Jonson's _Poetaster_ recites bits of _The Battle of Alcazar_ in rivalry with Dekker's _Captain Stukeley_. But although the date of the perfect play is almost certainly 1603, _Hamlet_ had certainly been on the stage some years at that time. Tucca in _Satiromastix_ (1601) says, "My name's _Hamlet Revenge_," and he comes on, "his boy after him, with two pictures under his cloak." In Marston's _Malcontent_ (1601), "Illo, ho, ho, ho! art thou there, old Truepenny?" must refer to _Hamlet_. 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's _Montaigne_, 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 Cæsar _in the University_, which could hardly have been before 1601; and _Hamlet_ was entered by Roberts 26th July 1602, in S. R., "as it was lately acted." Plays thus produced during "travels," were almost always hurried and careless performances; indeed, this form of _Hamlet_ seems 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 in _All's Well_, iv. 3. 185. The first Quarto is in this instance, as in those of _Romeo_, _Henry V._, and _Merry 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 in _Romeo_, 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 the period. 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:

[ 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'd_ before 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 full _quietus_ make
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 borne_ before 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 that_ O 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's _Jeronymo_ (_Spanish Tragedy_) by the Chapel children, probably at Jonson's suggestion; a new version of Kyd's _Hamlet_ naturally followed. Other such plays were: Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_ (Paul's, 1599-1600); Shakespeare's _Julius Cæsar_ (1600); Chettle and Heywood's _Hoffman, or Revenge for a Father_, also called _Like quits Like_ (Admiral's, January 1603): Chapman's _Revenge of Bussy_ is of later date. A passage in _Ram 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 his practical 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"--

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

1604.

_Measure for Measure_ was written, in my opinion, in rivalry to Marston's _The Fawn_, which was printed March 1606, but produced 1603-4. It was also subsequent to Chettle and Heywood's _Like 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 name is 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 in _3 Henry VI._, ii. 6. 55; the plot is like _All's Well_ in the substitution of Mariana, _Twelfth Night_ in the Duke's love declaration at the end. It is founded on Whetstone's _Promos 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.

_Othello_ was acted at Court 1st November 1604, being, no doubt, like _Measure for Measure_, 26th December, a new play that year. The _Merry Wives_, 4th November, and _Henry V._, 7th January, were revised for the same Revels. The _Errors_, 28th December, _Loves Labour's Lost_, between New Year and Twelfth Day, and _The 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 a transcript 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's _Discoursive Problem concerning Prophesies_ (1588), in which he speaks of "a _huge_ fearful eclipse of the sun" as to happen on that day. The likeness of this play in small details to _Measure for Measure_ indicates 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 novel _Hecatomithi_, Third Decad, Novel 3. The "men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders" (i. 3. 145) came from Raleigh's narrative of _The Discovery of Guyana_ (1600). He was "resolved" of their credibility. In _The 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).

1605.

_King Lear_ was probably on the stage when the old play of _Leir_ on 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 "these _late_ eclipses" (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 reading Harvey 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's _Declaration 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's _Arcadia_, 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_, and _Come away_), are from Middleton's _Witch_, acted 1621-22. The insertions in _Macbeth_ must have been 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's _Black Year_, 1606); the touching for the King's evil, iv. 3. 140-159, implies that James was on the throne. Camden, in his _Remains_ (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 of _Albion's England_ in 1606, but the absolute argument against this being a new play when Forman saw it performed 20th April 1610, lies in the distinct allusion in _The Puritan_ by 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 in _Hamlet_ and _Cæsar_, to which plays _Macbeth_ is throughout more closely allied than to _Lear_ or _Timon_. The references to Antony, i. 3. 84, iii. 1. 57, are just what might be expected from one who had recently read Plutarch's life of Antony for writing _Julius 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 of _Macbeth_ on 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 on _Macdobeth_, the other on _The Taming of a Shrew_. Kempe, in his _Dance from London to Norwich_ (1600), refers to this ballad as made by "a penny poet whose first making was the miserable stolen story of _Mac-do-el_ or _Mac-do-beth_ or _Mac_ somewhat, for I am sure a _Mac_ it 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 in the 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 in _Anglia_, vol. vii.

1606-7.

_Timon of Athens_ unquestionably contains much matter from another hand. The Shakespearian part is so like _Lear_ in matter, and _Anthony and Cleopatra_ in metre, that the conjectural date here assigned to it cannot be far wrong. It was founded on the passage in North's _Plutarch_ (Life of _Antony_), and perhaps on the story as told in Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_, with a hint or two from Lucian's _Dialogues_ (? at second hand; no translation of that time is known). It would be out of proportion in this 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's _Transactions_ for 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 whole _totus teres atque rotundus_. There is no trace of his ever working in conjunction with any author after 1594, although in this play, in _The Shrew_, and _Pericles_ there 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 play are 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 Cleopatra_ was 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 of _The Merchant of Venice_, _Troylus and Cressida_, and _As You Like it_.

1608.

_Coriolanus_ in all probability was produced not long after _Anthony_. There is no external evidence available. Both these Roman plays are founded on North's _Plutarch_.

1608.

_Pericles_ as 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 that _The 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's _Confessio Amantis_ and Twine's novel of _Prince 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 with _Anthony and Cleopatra_ 20th 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 in _Pimlico, or Run Redcap_ (1609).

1609.

_Cymbeline_ was probably produced after the Roman plays and before _Winters 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 after _Lear_ and _Macbeth_, 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's _Decameron_, 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 Tale_ was founded on Greene's _Dorastus 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 in _Bartholomew Fair_ links it with _The Tempest_: "If there be never a _servant monster_ in the Fair who can help it? nor a _nest of antics_? He is loth to make nature afraid in his plays like those that beget _Tales_, _Tempests_, and such like drolleries." This was written in 1614, and at that date he would of course allude to the _latest_ productions of Shakespeare, if to any. This allusion occurs in a play written for a rival company, the Princess Elizabeth's. In his _Conversations_ with Drummond, Jonson again refers to this play _apropos_ of Bohemia having no sea-coast. I suspect that the Bear was a success in _Mucedorus_, and therefore revived in this play.

1610.

_The Tempest_ was 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 used _The True Declaration of the Colony of Virginia_, S. R. 8th November 1610, in which the reference to _The Tempest_ as 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 of its first appearance was in October to November 1610, I have little doubt. Gonzalo's description of his ideal republic is from Florio's _Montaigne_. 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 the _débris_ of 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 Tale_ being 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-four years, 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., of _Henry 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's _Memorials_, 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, called _All 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 like _The Winter's Tale_ than 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's _Chronicle_ and Fox's _Christian Martyrs_ (1563). It is worth noting that its success called forth new editions of S. Rowley's _When you see me you know me_, and the _Lord Cromwell_ of W. S. in this year; both plays on Henry the Eighth's times. On the authorship question see Mr. Spedding's Essay in _The Gentleman's Magazine_, August 1850, Mr. Boyle's Essay and my own letter in the _Athenæum_. 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 in _Henry VIII._ The extant play was produced by Fletcher and Massinger in 1617.

1625.

_The Two Noble Kinsmen_ was 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 in _The 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's _Roman Actor_. Moreover, the Prologue tells us this was a _new_ play 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's _Game 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 Shakespeare was 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 been _known_ not 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 in _Apollonius 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] _Pericles_ and _Edward 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.