HISTORIES.
The Life and Death of King John.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. Anterior to 1598, as it is in Meres's list.
Origin. It was founded on a play called "The First and Second Part of the Troublesome Reign of King John of England," published in 1591.
The Life and Death of King Richard II.
Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1598; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1615; in the folio, 1623.
Date. The exact date cannot be ascertained; but from the style I should be inclined to regard it as one of Shakespeare's earliest plays.
Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle, and an older play on the same subject.
The First Part of King Henry IV.
Editions. 4to, 1598; 4to, 1599; 4to, 1604; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1613; in the folio, 1623.
Date. All we can say is, that it was anterior to 1598, and was most probably written in 1597.
Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle, and an anonymous play called "The Famous Victories of Henry V." The comic scenes are entirely Shakespeare's own, both in this and the two succeeding plays.
The Second Part of King Henry IV.
Editions. 4to, 1600; in the folio, 1623.
Date. Apparently in one of the years between 1597 and 1600. As has been already observed, it could hardly have been in existence when Meres wrote, or he would not have placed Titus Andronicus in his list. It is an objection that before 1597 Shakespeare had changed the name Oldcastle to Falstaff in the First Part, while in the 4to edition of this play a speech (I. 2) has the prefix Old. instead of Fal. But surely that may have been a slip of the copyist's memory, in consequence of Oldcastle having been the original title.
Origin. The same as of the First Part.
The Life of King Henry V.
Editions. 4to, 1600; 4to, 1602; 4to, 1608; in the folio, 1623.
Date. As in the chorus to Act V. there is an evident allusion to the expedition of the Earl of Essex to Ireland, whither he went in April 1599, and whence he returned in the following September, it would seem to be clear that the play was acted in the interval between those two months. The insertion of this passage seems to be inexplicable on any other hypothesis. This also proves that the choruses formed a part of the original play, though they are not to be found in the 4to editions, which, it is well known, are scandalously imperfect.
Origin. The same as that of the two preceding plays.
The Life and Death of King Richard III.
Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1598; 4to, 1602; 4to, 1605; in the folio, 1623.
Date. Anterior, of course, to 1597. I incline to regard it as posterior to King John and to Richard II.; for it has no stanzas and no riming passages. It is also very free from quibbles and plays upon words, except in the unfortunate soliloquy of Richard in the last act—a wonderful instance of want of taste, and even of judgment. The same may be said of the scenes between Richard and Lady Anne and the Queen.
Origin. Hollinshed, and probably More.
The Life of King Henry VIII.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. The following memorandum is in the Stationers' Registers:—"12 Feb. 1604[-5]. Nath. Butter. Yf he get good allowance for the Interlude of K. Henry the 8th, before he begin to print it, &c." This has been supposed to be the present play; but the style militates against this supposition. I offer the following proof, which has never, that I am aware of, been observed. In his early plays Shakespeare very rarely puts the preposition or conjunction at the end of one line and the noun or verb at the beginning of the next; in his succeeding ones he does so more frequently, and in his latest he is rather profuse of the practice. Now this construction is as frequent in Henry VIII. as in Coriolanus, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and his other later ones, whence it might seem that it should be referred to the same epoch. We are told, indeed, that in 1613 the Globe Theatre was set on fire and burned down by the discharge of chambers in a new play called "Henry VIII.;" but it is hardly possible that it could be this play, as Shakespeare had retired before that year.
Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle.
TRAGEDIES.
Romeo and Juliet.
Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1599; 4to, 1609; in the folio, 1623. There is also an undated 4to issued by Smethwick, the publisher of that of 1609, in which many typographical errors are corrected.
Date. In Act I. Sc. 2, the Nurse says, "'Tis since the earthquake now eleven years;" and, as Tyrwhitt justly observed, this could only have been the earthquake which was felt in England on the 6th of April 1580. It was quite in Shakespeare's way to make the allusion; and this would give 1591 as the year in which this play was first performed. This, then, may be the true date, though I greatly doubt of it; I should rather say, entirely reject it; for it surely can hardly be anterior to the first two comedies. The play, as appears from the 4to, 1597, was little more than a sketch of that which appeared, "corrected, augmented, and amended," in 1599.
Origin. The remote original is the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe in Ovid's Metamorphoses, from which an Italian writer named Luigi da Porto made a tale, printed in 1535. A tale formed from this was given by Bandello in 1554; and in 1562 a poem of Romeus and Juliet, by Arthur Brookes, taken from Bandello's, or rather from the version of it in Belleforest's Histoires Tragiques, was published in London; in 1567 the same tale, also from Bandello, appeared in Painter's Palace of Pleasure. Shakespeare chiefly followed Brooke; but he had also read the Palace of Pleasure, and probably Bandello's tale in the original.
Hamlet.
Editions. 4to, 1603; 4to, 1604; 4to, 1611; 4to undated (probably in 1607); in the folio, 1623.
Date. On the 26th of July 1602, an entry was made in the Stationers' Registers of "A Booke, The Revenge of Hamlett, prince of Denmarke, as yt was latelie acted, by the Lord Chambelayn his servantes." There can be little doubt that this was the present play. The text of the 4to, 1603, is in such a mangled, wretched condition, that it has not unreasonably been conjectured that it was formed from notes made during the representation. As in this the Polonius and Reynaldo of the present play are called Corambis and Montano, it is probable that the play received much addition and alteration; for the 4to, 1604, gives it "enlarged to almost as much again as it was, according to the true and perfect coppie." This play being so popular, it is not unlikely that the author may have frequently retouched it. It is very remarkable that it is by many degrees the most faulty of his plays, abounding, we may say, in incongruities, contradictions, and improbabilities.
Origin. Apparently a novel called The Hystorie of Hamblet, translated from Belleforest. There seems also to have been an older play on the subject.
Othello.
Editions. 4to, 1622; in the folio, 1623. There is also a 4to, 1630; but it is of little value, as it was evidently made not from a MS., but from the two preceding editions with some conjectural emendations. To the 4to, 1622, is prefixed—as to Troilus and Cressida—an Epistle "from the Stationer [Thos. Walkley] to the Reader."
Date. From the Accounts of the Revels, we learn that this play was performed at Court, November 1st, 1604; and if the Egerton Papers, published by Mr. Collier, can be relied on, it had been performed before Queen Elizabeth. In them we meet as follows:—"6 August, 1602. Rewards to the vaulters, players, and dancers—of this xli to Burbidge's players for Othello—lxiiiili xviiis xd." "The part of the memorandum which relates to Othello," says Mr. Collier, "is interlined as if added afterwards." Mr. Halliwell asserts that Othello must have been written even before 1600; for in a MS. of that date, entitled The Newe Metamorphosis, &c., is a passage evidently, he thinks, imitated from "who steals my purse steals trash" in Othello. But, though Mr. Halliwell thinks otherwise, this passage may have been a later insertion; or it may be a mere coincidence, a thing much more common than is usually supposed. At all events Othello was written, at latest, in 1604. I know not if it has been observed that Voltaire evidently had Othello in his mind when writing his Zaïre.
Origin. The only known source of this play is a tale in the Hecatommithi of Cinthio; and as no English translation of it is known to have existed, the obvious and natural inference is that Shakespeare had read it in the original. There was, however, it seems, a French translation: Paris, 1584.
Julius Cæsar.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. The real date of this play is very uncertain, and I am very dubious whether I am right or not in giving it this position. Mr. Collier—with whom Mr. Dyce agrees—is positive that it appeared before 1603, for in that year Drayton published his Barons' Wars, in which is a passage so like the character of Brutus given in this play (v. 5), that one poet must have borrowed from the other; and it is inferred of course that Drayton was the borrower. But this is not by any means so certain, as the eagle did not always disdain to take a plume from the smaller birds (see above, The Two Gentlemen of Verona). It is very strange, however, that neither of these critics seems to have been aware that the very same ideas, and even expressions, are to be found in the character given of Crites in Ben Jonson's Cynthia's Revels (ii. 1), which was performed in 1600, and which may therefore I think justly be regarded as the real immediate original of the passages in both poets; the germ, however, is to be found in Chaucer's Tale of the Doctor of Physik. All, then, that we can venture to affirm is, that Julius Cæsar is posterior to 1600. I incline to place it in point of time before Shakespeare's other plays on Roman subjects. It may be observed that his Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus are as much Histories as those that are so entitled, the history being Roman instead of English.
Origin. North's Plutarch, from the French of Amyot.
Antony and Cleopatra.
Edition. Only in the folio 1623.
Date. From the language of this play I feel inclined to place its date near that of Julius Cæsar. It is true that "A Booke called Anthony and Cleopatra," which may have been this play, was entered in the Stationers' Registers, May 20th, 1608; but it seems never to have appeared, and that entry is no proof that the play may not have been acted some years before that date.
Origin. Life of Antonius in North's Plutarch.
King Lear.
Edition. 4to, 1608; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1608; in the folio, 1623.
Date. Certainly posterior to 1603, in which year appeared Harsnet's Discovery of Popish Impostures, from which Shakespeare evidently took the names of the fiends mentioned by Edgar. There is an entry of it in the Stationers' Registers, November 26th, 1607, in which it is stated that it had been played before the King on the night of St. Stephen's Day in the preceding year. The latest date of its composition, then, that we can suppose is 1606.
Origin. Hollinshed, Mirror of Magistrates, and an old play on the same subject. The episode of Gloster and his sons was taken from Sidney's Arcadia, ii. 10.
Macbeth.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. Dr. Forman states in his MS. Diary that he saw this play "at the Globe, 1610, the 20th of April, Saturday;" but it does not follow by any means that it was then a new play. I agree with Mr. Collier in thinking that the mention of "twofold balls and treble sceptres" should induce us to place it not very far from the accession of James I. (Oct. 24, 1604), and therefore in 1605 or 1606. Malone thought there was an allusion (in II. 3) to the state of the corn-market in 1606, and to the conduct of the Jesuit Garnet on his trial in that year; but this is little more than fancy.
Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle.
Troilus and Cressida.
Editions. 4to, 1609; in the folio, 1623.
Date. It was entered in the Stationers' Registers, January 28, 1608-9. It had not been acted at that time; for the publishers state, in an Address to the Reader, that it had never been "staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar;" while in a reissue of it in the same year the Address was suppressed, and it was given "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants at the Globe." It is therefore evident that it was first acted in 1609; but it might have been written some years earlier. It is a very curious question, and one to which I am unable to give a satisfactory answer, how it came into the hands of the publisher. I entirely disagree with those critics who think they discern in it the hand of another poet; for there is not a play in the whole collection more thoroughly Shakespearian in every scene. The conclusion certainly is huddled up in a way not elsewhere to be met with in these plays; but that is no proof of this theory; for if Shakespeare had taken up the work of another, the conclusion is the very part he would have been most likely to develope. It is further very remarkable, that though this play was not exposed to the wear and tear of the property-room, it contains more imperfect lines than almost any other. This I can only attribute to the haste and carelessness of the transcriber, who, as working surreptitiously, was anxious to hurry through his task in as short a time as possible. I will observe, in fine, that, though it contains the death of Hector—which might perhaps better have been omitted—it is in reality a tragi-comedy, as much so as any of Beaumont and Fletcher's.
Origin. Chaucer's Troilus and Cresseida, Caxton's Recuyl of the Historyes of Troye, and Lydgate's Historye, Sege, and Destruccyon of Troye.
Timon of Athens.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. We have no means of ascertaining the exact date; but the language and the use of rimes in the dialogue induce me to think that it was near that of Troilus and Cressida.
Origin. The story of Timon in Painter's Palace of Pleasure, and life of Antony in North's Plutarch.
Coriolanus.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. A little later, I think, than the two preceding plays; for there is only one riming passage in it.
Origin. Life of Coriolanus in North's Plutarch.
Cymbeline.
Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.
Date. From the style and the family resemblance—as appears to me—between Imogen, Miranda, and Perdita, I should deem it to be contemporaneous with the Tempest and the Winter's Tale. We may place it, then, in or after 1610.
Origin. The tale of Bernabò da Genova in the Decamerone, which Shakespeare had probably read in the original. There was an imitation of it in a tract called Westward for Smelts, of which, however, no edition earlier than 1620 is known. For the historical part, he, of course, had resorted to Hollinshed.
In these plays we may, I think, distinguish four different phases of composition, in each of which the thoughts and the language of the poet present a peculiar appearance.
The first phase extends we may say from 1593 to 1598, and contains the plays in Meres's list—except 1 Henry IV., and The Merchant of Venice, and The Taming of the Shrew. It is distinguished by a continual play on words and by frequent rimes—both in couplets and in stanzas—while the blank verse, which is as yet unformed, is harmonious and almost always decasyllabic. Richard III. seems to form the connecting link between this and the next phase; for it is free from both rimes and play on words, while the blank verse has not yet acquired its appropriate form.
The second phase would seem to extend from 1598 to 1603. It contains The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It, Much Ado about Nothing, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Twelfth Night, 1 and 2 Henry IV., Henry V., Hamlet, Othello, Julius Cæsar, Antony and Cleopatra. Here the dramatic blank verse is perfect, trisyllabic feet being admitted, and the lines running into each other, rimes only appearing in final couplets. There rarely occurs a play on words, and the language is in general easy and natural.
The third phase may extend from 1603 to 1609. It contains Measure for Measure, Lear, Macbeth, Troilus and Cressida, Timon of Athens, and Coriolanus. In this the poet returned to the practice of giving passages of several lines in rime, though not in stanzas, and his language is obscured by periphrases, inversions, and ellipses to such an extent that many places—the speeches of Ulysses, for instance, in Troilus and Cressida—must have been perfectly unintelligible to an ordinary audience. He had already, as in Antony and Cleopatra, begun to place more frequently the preposition or conjunction at the end of one line and the word connected with it at the beginning of the next, and he continues to do so here, chiefly in Coriolanus, though hardly at all in Troilus and Cressida, or in Timon of Athens.
The fourth and last phase contains The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, Henry VIII., Cymbeline. He here seems to have made a return to the simpler language of the second phase. In Henry VIII. and The Tempest, what has been said of prepositions and conjunctions goes on to a great extent.
The plays above noticed—thirty-two in number—are the genuine productions of the poet. Two of them, King John and The Taming of the Shrew, were founded on plays that are still extant, and we may see that he used them precisely as he did the tales and chronicles on which he founded so many of his other plays, taking the story, the incidents, the characters, and, when it suited his purpose, the language which they contained.
But beside these, we find in the folio four other plays of a different kind, of which the most that any critic ventures to assert is that they were retouched, improved, and enlarged by Shakespeare. Of two of these, namely The Second and Third Parts of Henry VI. this would seem to be the truth; for we have the two plays in their original form, and there can be little doubt that it was them chiefly that Green had in view in the passage quoted above from his Groat's Worth of Wit, &c.; and upon examination it appears that in the first of them Shakespeare's additions and improvements amount to a fifth, in the second to only an eighth part of the text. Of the other two, The First Part of Henry VI. and Titus Andronicus, after a very careful study of them, my decided opinion, and apparently that of Mr. Dyce also, is that, with an exception presently to be noticed, neither the one nor the other contains a single speech or even a single line from the pen of Shakespeare. How they got into the folio is a question not easy to answer. Heminge and Condell, no doubt, may not have been critics, and so may have fancied that he had had to do with The First Part of Henry VI. also; or they may have merely inserted it as being connected with the other Parts. As to Titus Andronicus, I have already given a reason for its appearance in Meres's list. He had probably heard that it was by Shakespeare, and he made no exact inquiry, and so ascribed it to him; and the editors of the folio may have taken it on his authority, or have followed the same tradition. I do not believe that it was at any time in Shakespeare's nature to write the horrors of one of these plays, or to treat the noble Maid of Orleans as she is treated in the other, or even to labour on and improve the pieces that contained them. Besides, there are nowhere to be found plays more entirely of one single cast than these are. There is also displayed in them an acquaintance with Horace and others of the ancient Classics which Shakespeare did not possess. They may have been written by either Kyd or Marlow, each of whom had this acquaintance, and also a taste for horrors, and abundant talent for their composition. At the same time I think it possible that, as there is a Clown in Titus Andronicus—the only instance I believe out of the plays of Shakespeare—the two short, trifling, and needless scenes in which he appears may be from our poet's pen, and that hence the play was hastily ascribed to him.
The following plays also were published during Shakespeare's life-time with his name, in full or in initials, on the title-pages: Locrine, 1595; The Life of Sir John Oldcastle, 1600—known to be by Munday, Drayton, Wilson, and Hathway; History of Thomas Lord Cromwell, 1602; The London Prodigal, 1605; The Puritan, or The Widow of Watling Street, 1607; A Yorkshire Tragedy, 1608. These, with Pericles, Prince of Tyre—also published under his name in 1609—were printed in the 3rd folio, 1664, and reprinted in the 4th, 1685, and finally by Rowe in his edition of Shakespeare's Plays. The Two Noble Kinsmen, by Fletcher and Shakespeare, was published in 1634.
Of the first six of these plays the opinion of the critics is tolerably unanimous that Shakespeare had nothing whatever to do with them. Yet, as in Locrine (printed so early as 1595) it is said, "newly set forth, overseen and corrected, by W. S." it is possible, though most unlikely, that it may be one of the plays on which he operated in the early part of his dramatic career; and the fame of his Poems lately printed, may have induced the publisher to place his initials in the title-page. As to Pericles, it was rejected, with Locrine, &c., by Pope, Theobald, and all the editors down to Malone, who printed all these pieces in 1780 in the Supplement to the edition of Johnson and Steevens; he did not, however, include any of them in his own edition of 1790. Steevens admitted Pericles into his edition of 1793 on the authority of Farmer, but marked with an asterisk, as being only in part Shakespeare's, to which opinion Malone, who at first thought it wholly his, acceded. It finally was included in Reed's and in the Boswell-Malone or Variorum edition, which succeeding editors have followed. From mine it has been excluded, as I am most firmly of opinion that it does not contain a single line of Shakespeare's, and that it is an insult to his memory to give it a place among his genuine works. In fact the deliberate rejection of it by Heminge and Condell from the folio ought to outweigh all conjectural proofs in its favour. These, we must recollect, were not ordinary players, they were Shakespeare's fellows or partners in the theatres; and it was therefore utterly impossible that any play could be acted there without their knowing who was the author. They must, then, have known that Shakespeare had had nothing to do with it; for their admission of 1 Hen. VI. and Titus Andronicus proves that evidence even of the slenderest kind would have turned the beam with them. His name at full length in the title-page proves nothing; for it is also in that of Sir John Oldcastle, 1600, which is known not to be his.
As to the Two Noble Kinsmen, it was published in 1634 as "written by the memorable worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakespeare"—putting the greater last—an evident bookseller's artifice; for surely Shakespeare at the zenith of his fame, and toward the close of his dramatic career, would not join with a young poet in the composition of a play, a thing that he never seems to have done, even when he was a young poet himself. Mr. Dyce, who had rejected, afterwards adopted the theory of its being in a certain sense a joint composition; and he makes some strange hypotheses upon the subject, which to me seem utterly devoid of probability. Surely, for example, it is not to be supposed that a man of Shakespeare's business-habits would, when winding-up, as we may term it, leave behind him, in the hands of the House, an unfinished drama, and that what he left should have been the beginning and the end of a play! It is pretty generally agreed that the entire play, except the first and fifth acts, is by Fletcher. To me it seems certain that the first act, though the work of a superior poet, is not Shakespeare's; and I feel quite confident that the first, as well as the second, scene of the last act is by Fletcher; while the concluding scenes are by some other poet, different from, and, I think, superior to, the writer of the first act. My theory is, that Fletcher either obtained the commencement of a play by some one else, or began to write in conjunction with some one, and, the play being unfinished at his death, it was concluded by another poet, possibly Massinger, who alone seems capable of writing such a noble termination of so fine a drama.
THE TEXT
CORRECTED AND ELUCIDATED.
INTRODUCTION.
I. THE TEXT. II. THE VERSE.
COMEDIES.
HISTORIES.
TRAGEDIES.