The second piece of evidence on this point has also recently come to light. It is contained in a MS. Diary, or Notebook, kept by Dr. Simon Forman, (MSS. Ashm. 208.) in which, under date of the 15th May, 1611, he states that he saw "The Winter's Tale" at the Globe Theatre: this was the May preceding the representation of it at Court on the 5th November. He gives the following brief account of the plot, which ingeniously includes all the main incidents : "Observe there how Leontes, king of Sicilia, was overcome with jealousy of his wife with the king of Bohemia, his friend that came to see him; and how he contrived his death, and would have had his cup-bearer to have poisoned [him], who gave the king of Bohemia warning thereof, and fled with him to Bohemia. Remember, also, how he sent to the oracle of Apollo, and the answer of Apollo that she was guiltless, and that the king was jealous, &c.; and how, except the child was found again that was lost, the king should die without issue; for the child was carried into Bohemia, and there laid in a forest, and brought up by a shepherd; and the king of Bohemia's son married that wench, and how they fled into Sicilia to Leontes; and the shepherd having showed the letter of the nobleman whom Leontes sent, it was that child, and [by] the jewels found about her, she was known to be Leontes' daughter, and was then sixteen years old. Remember, also, the rogue that came in all tattered, like Coll Pipci, and how he feigned him sick, and to have been robbed of all he had; and how he cozened the poor man of all his money, and after came to the sheep-sheer with a pedlar's packe, and there cozened them again of all their money. And how he changed apparel with the king of Bohemia's son, and then how he turned courtier, &c. Beware of trusting feigned beggars or fawning fellows." We have reason to think that "The Winter's Tale" was in its first run on the 15th May, 1611, and that the Globe Theatre had not then been long opened for the season. The opinion that the play was then a novelty, is strongly confirmed by the third piece of evidence, which Malone discovered late in life, and which induced him to relinquish his earlier opinion, that "The Winter's Tale" was written in 1604. He found a memorandum in the office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, dated the 19th August, 1628, in which it was stated that "The Winter's Tale," was an old play formerly allowed of by Sir George Buc." Sir George Buc was Master of the Revels from October, 1610, until May, 1622. Sir George Buc must, therefore, have licensed "The Winter's Tale" between October, 1610, when he was appointed to his office, and May, 1611, when Forman saw it at the Globe. It might have been composed by Shakespeare in the autumn and winter of 1610-11, with a view to its production on the Bank-side, as soon as the usual performances by the King's players commenced there. Sir Henry Herbert informs us, that when he gave permission to revive "The Winter's Tale in August 1623, the allowed book "" (that to which Sir George Buc had appended his signature) "was missing." It had no doubt been destroyed when the Globe Theatre was consumed by fire on 29th June, 1618. We have seen that "The Tempest" and "The Winter's Tale" were both acted at Whitehall, and included in Sir George Buc's account of the expenses of the Revels from October, 1611, to October, 16121. How much older "The Tempest" might be than "The Winter's Tale," we have no means of determining; but there is a circumstance which shows that the composition of "The Tempest" was anterior to that of "The Winter's Tale ;" and this brings us to speak of the novel upon which the latter is founded. As early as the year 1588, Robert Greene printed a tract called "Pandosto: The Triumph of Time," better known as "The History of Dorastus and Fawnia," the title it bore in some of the later copies. As far as we now know, it was not reprinted until 1607, and a third impression appeared in 1609: it afterwards went through many editions2; but it seems not unlikely that Shakespeare was directed to it, as a proper subject for dramatic representation, by the third impression which came out the year before we suppose him to have commenced writing his "Winter's Tale3. "In In many respects our 1 The circumstance that "The Tempest" and "The Winter's Tale" were both acted at court at this period, and that they might belong to nearly the same date of composition, seems to give great additional probability to the opinion, that Ben Jonson alluded to them in the following passage in the Induction to his "Bartholomew Fair," which was acted in 1614, while Shakespeare's two plays were still high in popular favour:-"If there be never a Servant-monster i' the Fair, who can help it, he says? nor a nest of Anticks? He is loth to make nature afraid in his Playes, like those that beget Tales, Tempests, and such like Drolleries." The Italic type and the capitals are as they stand in the original edition in folio, 1631. Gifford (Ben Jonson's Works, Vol. iv. p. 370) could not be brought to acknowledge great dramatist follows Greene's story very closely, as may be seen by some of the notes in the course of the play, and by the recent republication of "Pandosto" from the unique copy of 1588, in "Shakespeare's Library." There is, however, one remarkable variation, which it is necessary to point out. Greene says: "The guard left her" (the Queen) "in this perplexitie, and carried the child to the king, who, quite devoide of pity, commanded that without delay it should be put in the boat, having neither sail nor rudder to guide it, and so to be carried into the midst of the sea, and there left to the wind and wave, as the destinies please to appoint." The child thus "left to the wind and wave" is the Perdita of Shakespeare, who describes the way in which the infant was exposed very differently, and probably for this reason:— that in "The Tempest " he had previously (perhaps not long before) represented Prospero and Miranda turned adrift at sea in the same manner as Greene had stated his heroine to have been disposed of. When, therefore, Shakespeare came to write "The Winter's Tale," instead of following Greene, as he had usually done in other minor circumstances, he varied from the original narrative, in order to avoid an objcctionable similarity of incident in his two dramas. It is true, that in the conclusion Shakespeare has also made important and most judicious changes in the story; since nothing could well be more revolting than for Pandosto (who answers to Leontes) first to fall dotingly in love with his own daughter, and afterwards to commit suicide. The termination to which our great dramatist brings the incidents is at once striking, natural, and beautiful, and is an equal triumph of judgment and power. It is, perhaps, singular that Malone, who observed upon the "involved parenthetical sentences" prevailing in "The Winter's Tale," did not in that very peculiarity find a proof that it must have been one of Shakespeare's later productions. In the Stationers' Registers there is no earlier entry of it than that of Nov. 8, 1623, when the publication of the first folio was contemplated by Blount and Jaggard: it originally appeared in that volume, where it is regularly divided into Acts and Scenes: the "Wynter's Nighte's Pastime," noticed in the registers under date of May 22, 1594, must have been a different work. If any proof of the kind were wanted, we learn from two lines in "Dido, Queen of Carthage," by Marlowe and Nash, 1594, 4to, that "a winter's tale" was a then current phrase: "Who would not undergoe all kinde of toyle To be well stor'd with such a winter's tale?" Sign. D. 3 b. In representing Bohemia to be a maritime country, Shakespeare adopted the popular notion, as it had been encouraged since 1588 by Greene's "Pandosto." With regard to the prevailing ignorance of geography, the subsequent passage from John Taylor's "Travels to Prague in Bohemia," a journey performed by him in 1620, shows that the satirical writer did not consider it strange that an alderman of London was not aware that a fleet of ships could not arrive at a port of Bohemia: "I am no sooner eased of him, but Gregory Gandergoose, an Alderman of Gotham, catches me by the goll, demanding if Bohemia be a great town, and whether there be any meat in it, and whether the last fleet of ships be arrived there." It is to be observed, that Shakespeare reverses the scene of "Pandosto," and represents as passing in Sicily, what Greene had made to occur in Bohemia. In several places he more verbally followed Greene in this play than he did even Lodge in As You Like it" but the general variations are greater from "Pandosto " than from "Rosalynde." Shakespeare does not adopt one of the appellations given by Greene; and it may be noticed that, just anterior to the time of our poet, the name he assigns to the Queen of Leontes had been employed as that of a male character: in "The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune," acted at court in 1581-2, and printed in 1589, Hermione is the lover of the heroine. "The idea of this delightful drama" (says Coleridge in his Lit. Rem. vol. ii. p. 250) is a genuine jealousy of disposition, and it should be immediately followed by the perusal of Othello,' which is the direct contrast of it in every particuthat the words "Servant-monster," "Anticks," "Tales," and "Tempests," applied to Shakespeare, but with our present information the fact seems hardly disputable. 2 How long it continued popular, may be judged from the fact that it was printed as a chap-book as recently as the year 1735, when it was called "The Fortunate Lovers; or the History of Dorastus, Prince of Sicily, and of Fawnia, only daughter and heir to the King of Bohemia,” 12mo. 3 In a note upon a passage in Act iii. sc. 2, a reason is assigned for thinking that Shakespeare did not employ the first edition of Greene's novel, but in all probability that of 1609. lar. For jealousy is a vice of the mind, a culpable tendency of temper, having certain well known and well defined effects and concomitants, all of which are visible in Leontes, and I boldly say, not one of which marks its presence in Othello: such as, first, an excitability by the most inadequate causes, and an eagerness to snatch at proofs; secondly, a grossness of conception, and a disposition to degrade the object of the passion by sensual fancies and images; thirdly, a sense of shame of his own feelings exhibited in a solitary moodiness of humour, and yet from the violence of the passion forced to utter itself, and therefore catching occasions to ease the mind by ambiguities, and equivoques, by talking to those who cannot, and who are known not to be able to understand what is said to them; in short, by soliloquy in the form of dialogue, and hence a confused, broken, and fragmentary manner; fourthly, a dread of vulgar ridicule, as distinct from a high sense of honour, or a mistaken sense of duty; and lastly, and immediately consequent on this, a spirit of selfish vindictive ness." the fact that, at some later date, he was instrumental in a revival of the old "King John.' How long the old "King John" had been in possession of the stage prior to 1591, when it was originally printed, we have no precise informations, but Shakespeare found it there, and took the course usual with dramatists of the times, by applying to his own purposes as much of it as he thought would be advantageous. He converted the "two parts" into one drama, and in many of its main features followed the story, not as he knew it in history, but as it was fixed in popular belief. In some particulars he much improved upon the conduct of the incidents: for instance, in the first act of the old "King John," Lady Falconbridge is, needlessly and objectionably, made a spectator of the scene in which the bastardy of her son Philip is discussed before King John and his mother. Another amendment of the original is the absence of Constance from the stage when the marriage between Lewis and Blanch is debated and determined. A third material variation ought not to be passed over without remark. Although Shakespeare, like the author or authors of the old from the monasteries in England, he avoids the scenes of extortion and ribaldry of the elder play, in which the monks and nuns are turned into ridicule, and the indecency and licentiousness of their lives exposed. Supposing the old "King John" to have been brought upon the stage not long after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, when the hatred of the Roman Catholics was at its height, such an exLIFE AND DEATH OF KING JOHN. hibition must have been extremely gratifying to the taste of vulgar audiences. Shakespeare might justly hold in contempt ["The Life and Death of King John" was first printed in the such a mode of securing applause; or, possibly, his own refolio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-two pages; viz. from ligious tenets (a point which is considered at length, with p. 1 to p. 22 inclusive, a new pagination beginning with the the addition of some new information, in the biography of Histories.' It occupies the same place and the same the poet) might induce him to touch lightly upon such matspace in the re-impressions of 1632, 1664, and 1685.] ters. Certain it is, that the elder drama contains much coarse "KING JOHN," the earliest of Shakespeare's "Histories" abuse of the Roman Catholics, and violent invective against in the folio of 1623, (where they are arranged according to the the ambition of the pontiff, little of which is found in Shakereigns of the different monarchs) first appeared in that vol-speare. It is, however, easy to discover reasons why he ume,1 and the Registers of the Stationers' Company have would refuse to pander to popular prejudice, without supsearched in vain for any entry regarding it: it is not enume- posing him to feel direct sympathy with the enemies of the rated by Blount and Jaggard on the 8th Nov. 1623, when Reformation. they inserted a list of the pieces, "not formerly entered to other men," about to be included in their folio: hence an inference might be drawn that there had been some previous entry of "King John" "to other men," and, perhaps, even that the play had been already published2. In his lectures in 1815, Coleridge dwelt on the "not easily jealous" frame of Othello's mind, and on the art of the great" King John," employs the Bastard forcibly to raise money poet in working upon his generous and unsuspecting nature: he contrasted the characters of Othello and Leontes in this respect, the latter from predisposition requiring no such malignant instigator as Iago. THE Some of the principal incidents of the reign of John had been converted into a drama, with the purpose of promoting the Reformation, very early in the reign of Elizabeth, if not in that of Edward VI. We refer to the play of " Kynge Johan," by Bishop Bale, which, like the old "King John," is in two parts, though we can trace no other particular resemblance. It was printed by the Camden Society, from the author's original MS. (in the library of the duke of Devonshire) in 1888, and is à specimen of the mixture of allegory and history in the same play, perhaps unexampled. As it was, doubtless, unknown both to the author or authors of the old "King John," as well as to Shakespeare, it requires no farther notice here, than to show at how early a date that portion of our annals had been brought upon the stage. It seems indisputable that Shakespeare's "King John" was founded upon an older play, three times printed anterior to the publication of the folio of 1623: "The first and second part of the troublesome Reign of John, King of England," came from the press in 1591, 1611, and 1622.3 Malone, and others who have adverted to this production, have obviously not had the several impressions before them. The earliest copy, that of 1591, has no name on the title-page: that of 1611 has" "W. for? W. Sh." to indicate the author, and that of 1622, ❝ W. Shakespeare," the sur-name only at length. Steevens once Upon the question, when "King John" was written by thought that the ascription of it to Shakespeare by fraudulent Shakespeare, we have no knowledge beyond the fact that booksellers, who wished it to be taken for his popular work, Francis Meres introduces it into his list in 1598. Malone spewas correct, but he subsequently abandoned this untenable culated that it was composed in 1596, but he does not place opinion. Pope attributed it jointly to Shakespeare and Wil-reliance upon the internal evidence he himself adduces, which liam Rowley; and Farmer "made no doubt that Rowley wrote certainly is of a more than usually vague character. Chalmers, the first King John." There is, however, reason to believe on the other hand, would assign the play to 1598, but the that Rowley was not an author at so early a date: his first chance seems to be, that it was written a short time before it extant printed work was a play, in writing which he aided was spoken of by Meres: we should be disposed to assign it John Day and George Wilkins, called "The Travels of three to a date between 1596 and 1598, when the old "King John,” English Brothers," 1607. In 1591, he must have been very which was probably in a course of representation in 1591, had young; but we are not therefore to conclude decisively that gone a little out of recollection, and when Meres would have his name is not, at any period and in any way, to be connect- had time to become acquainted with Shakespeare's drama, ed with a drama on the incidents of the reign of King John; from its popularity either at the Globe or Blackfriars' Thefor the tradition of Pope's time may have been founded upon upon atres. 1 It purports to be divided into acts and scenes, but very irregularly: thus what is called Actus Secundus fills no more than about half a page, and Actus Quartus is twice repeated. The later folios adopt this defective arrangement, excepting that in that of 1632 Actus Quintus is made to precede Actus Quartus. more than one dramatist was concerned in the composition of the play. 4 The edition of 1591 was printed for Sampson Clarke: that of 1611, by Valentine Simmes, for John Helme; and that of 1622, by Aug. Mathews, for Thomas Dewe. 2 On the 29th Nov. 1614, "a booke called the Historie of George 5 The edition of 1591 is preceded by a Prologue, omitted in the two Lord Faulconbridge, bastard son of Richard Cordelion," was entered later impressions, which makes it quite clear that the old "King on the Stationers' Registers, but this was evidently the prose romance | John," was posterior to Marlowe's "Tamberlaine :" it begins, of which an edition in 1616, 4to. is extant. Going back to 1558, it appears that a book, called "Cur de Lion," was entered on the Stationers' Register of that year. 3 "It was written, I believe (says Malone), by Robert Greene, or George Peele," but he produces nothing in support of his opinion. The mention of "the Scythian Tamberlaine," in the Prologue to the edition of the old "King John," in 1591, might lead us to suppose that it was the production of Marlowe, who did not die until 1593; but the style of the two parts is evidently different: rhyming couplets are much more abundant in the first than in the second, and there is reason to believe, according to the frequent custom of that age, that "You that with friendly grace of smoothed brow, In the Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. iii. p. 112, 6 In Henslowe's MS. Diary, under the date of May, 1598, we meet with an entry of a play by Robert Wilson, Henry Chettle, Anthony Munday, and Michael Drayton, entitled "The Funerals of Richard Cordelion." It possibly had no connexion with the portion of history to which Shakespeare's play and the old "King John" relate. KING RICHARD II. ["The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine Lis Seruants. London Printed by Valentine Simmes for Androw Wise, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules church yard at the signe of the Angel. 1597. 4to. 37 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath beene clear that any reference to it was intended by Shakespeare. Where the matter is so extremely doubtful, we shall not attempt to fix on any particular year. If any argument, one way or the other, could be founded upon the publication of Daniel's "Civil Wars," in 1595, it would show that that poet had made alterations in subsequent editions of his poem, in order, perhaps, to fall in more with the popular notions regarding the history of the time, as produced by the success of the play of our great dramatist. Meres mentions "Richard the 2" in 1598. Respecting the "new additions" of "the deposing of King Richard" we have some evidence, the existence of which was not known in the time of Malone, who conjectured that this scene had originally formed part of Shakespeare's play, and was "suppressed in the printed copy of 1597, from the fear of offending Elizabeth," and not published, with the rest, until 16082. Such may have been the case, but we now know that there were two separate plays upon the events of the reign of Richard II., and the deposition seems to have formed a portion of both. On the 30th Aprl, 1611, Dr. Simon Forman saw "Richard 2," as he expressly calls it, at the Globe Theatre, for which Shakespeare was a writer, at which he had been an actor, and in the receipts of which he was interested. In his original Diary, (MS. Ashm. 208,) preserved in the Bodleian Library, Forman inserts the following account of, and observations upon, the plot of the "Richard II.,” he having been present at the representation :— "Remember therein how Jack Straw, by his overmuch In the folio of 1623, "The life and death of King Richard the boldness, not being politic, nor suspecting any thing, was Second" occupies twenty-three pages, viz. from p. 23 to suddenly, at Smithfield Bars, stabbed by Walworth, the p. 45, inclusive. The three other folios reprint it in the Mayor of London; and so he and his whole army was oversame form, and in all it is divided into Acts and Scenes.] thrown. Therefore, in such case, or the like, never admit ABOVE we have given the titles of four quarto editions of any party without a bar between, for a man cannot be too "King Richard II.," which preceded the publicaion of the wise, nor keep himself too safe. Also, remember how the folio of 1623, and which were all published during the life- Duke of Glouster, the Earl of Arundel, Oxford, and others, time of Shakespeare: they bear date respectively in 1597, crossing the King in his humour about the Duke of Erland 1598, 1608, and 1615. It will be observed that the title of (Ireland) and Bushy, were glad to fly and raise a host of men: the edition of 1608 states that it contains "new additions and being in his castle, how the Duke of Erland came by of the Parliament Scene, and the deposing of King Richard." night to betray him, with 800 men; but, having privy warning The Duke of Devonshire is in possession of an unique copy, thereof, kept his gates fast, and would not suffer the enemy dated 1608, the title of which merely follows the wording of to enter, which went back again with a fly in his ear, and the preceding impression of 1598, omitting any notice of after was slain by the Earl of Arundel in the battle. Rememnew additions," though containing the whole of them1. ber, also, when the Duke (i. e. of Gloucester) and Arundel came The name of our great dramatist first appears in connection to London with their army, King Richard came forth to them, with this historical play in 1598, as if Simmes the printer, and and met them, and gave them fair words, and promised them Wise the stationer, when they printed and published their pardon, and that all should be well, if they would discharge edition of 1597, did not know, or were not authorized to state, their army; upon whose promises and fair speeches they did that Shakespeare was the writer of it. Precisely the same it: and after, the King bid them all to a banquet, and so bewas the case with "King Richard III.," printed and pub-trayed them, and cut off their heads, &c., because they had lished by the same parties in the same year, and of which also a second edition appeared in 1598, with the name of the author. We will first speak regarding the date of the original production of "Richard II.," and then of the period when it is likely that the "new additions" were inserted. It was entered on the Stationers' Register in 1597, in the following manner: "29 Aug. 1597. not his pardon under his hand and seal before, but his word. Remember therein, also, how the Duke of Lancaster privily contrived all villainy to set them all together by the ears, and to make the nobility to envy the King, and mislike him and his government; by which means he made his own son king, which was Henry Bolingbroke. Remember, also, how the Duke of Lancaster asked a wise man whether himself should ever be king; and he told him no, but his son should be a king: and when he had told him, he hanged him up for his labour, because he should not bruit abroad, or speak thereof to others. This was a policy in the Commonwealth's opinion, but I say it was a villain's part, and a Judas' kiss, to hang the man for telling him the truth. Beware by this example of noblemen and their fair words, and say little to them, lest they do the like to thee for thy good will." Andrew Wise.] The Tragedye of Richard the Seconde." This memorandum was made anterior, but perhaps only shortly anterior, to the actual publication of "Richard II.," and it forms the earliest notice of its existence. Malone supposes that it was written in 1593, but he does not produce a single fact or argument to establish his position; nor perhaps could any be adduced beyond the circumstance, that having The quotation was first published in "New Particulars reassigned the "Comedy of Errors" to 1592, and "Love's La-garding Shakespeare and his Works," 8vo, 1886, where it bour's Lost" to 1594, he had left an interval between those was suggested that this "Richard II." might be the play years in which he could place not only "Richard II." but which Sir Gilly Merrick and others are known to have pro"Richard III.” In fact, we can arrive at no nearer approx-cured to be acted the afternoon before the insurrection imation; although Chalmers, in his "Supplemental Apology," headed by the Earls of Essex and Southampton, in 1601; contended that a note of time was to be found in the allusions the allusions (Bacon's Works by Mallet, iv. 320) but in a letter, published in the first and second Acts to the disturbances in Ireland. in a note to the same tract, Mr. Amyot argued, that "the It is quite certain that the rebellion in that country was re-deposing of King Richard" probably formed no part of the newed in 1594, and proclaimed in 1595: but it is far from play Forman saw, and that it might actually be another, and 1 There is another circumstance belonging to the title-page of the the insurrection of Lords Essex and Southampton. Thorpe's CustuDuke of Devonshire's copy which deserves notice: it states that the male Roffense, p. 89, contains an account of an interview between play was printed "as it hath been publikely acted by the Right Ho-Lambarde (when he presented his pandect of the records of the Tower) nourable the Lord Chamberlaine, his seruantes." The company to and Elizabeth, shortly subsequent to that event, in which she obwhich Shakespeare belonged were not called the servants of the Lord served, "I am Richard the Second, know you not that?" Lambarde Chamberlain after James I. came to the throne, but "the King's replied, "Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted Majesty's servants," as in the title-page of the other copy of 1608. by a most unkind gentleman, the most adorned creature that ever This fact might give rise to the supposition, that it had been intended your Majestie made." "He (said the Queen) that will forgett God to reprint an edition of Richard II., including "the Parliament will alsoe forgett his benefactors." The publication of the edition scene," but not mentioning it, before the death of Elizabeth; but of 1608, without the mention on the title-page of "the Parliament that for some reason it was postponed for about five years. Scene, and the deposing of King Richard," might have been contemplated about this date. 2 There might be many reasons why the exhibition of the deposing of Richard II. would be objectionable to Elizabeth, especially after a lost play by Shakespeare, intended as a "first part The very description of the plot given by Forman reads as if it were an old play, with the usual quantity of blood and treachery. How it came to be popular enough, in 1611, to be performed at the Globe must be matter of mere speculation : perhaps the revival of it by the party of the Earls of Essex and Southampton had recalled public attention to it, and improvements might have been made which would render it a favourite in 1611, though it had been neglected in 1601. Out of these improvements, and out of this renewed popularity, may, possibly, have grown the "new additions," which were first printed with the impression of Shakespeare's "Richard II." in 16081, and which solely relate to the deposing of the King. On the other hand, if these "new additions, as they were termed in 1608, were only a suppressed part of the original play, there seems no sufficient ground for concluding that it was not Shakespeare's drama which was acted at the instance of Sir Gilly Merrick in 1601. If it were written in 1593, as Malone imagined, or even in 1596, according to the speculation of Chalmers, it might be called an old play in 1601, considering the rapidity with which dramas were often written and brought out at the period of which we are speaking. If neither Shakespeare's play, nor that described by Forman, were the pieces selected by Sir Gilly Merrick, there must have been three distinct plays, in the possession of the company acting at the Globe, upon the events of the reign of Richard II. For the incidents of this "most admirable of all Shakespeare's purely historical plays," as Coleridge calls it, (Lit. Rem. ii. 164,) our great poet appears to have gone no farther than Holinshed, who was himself indebted to Hall and Fabian. However, Shakespeare has nowhere felt himself bound to adhere to chronology when it better answered his purpose to desert it. Thus, the Prince of Wales, afterwards Henry V., is spoken of in Act v. sc. 3, as frequenting taverns and stews, when he was in fact only twelve years old. Marston, in a short address before his "Wonder of Women," 1606, aiming a blow at Ben Jonson, puts the duty of a dramatic author in this respect upon its true footing, when he says, "I have not laboured to tie myself to relate anything as a historian, but to enlarge everything as a poet ;" and what we have just referred to in this play is exactly one of those anachronisms which, in the words of Schlegel, Shakespeare committed purposely and most deliberately?" His design, of course, was in this instance to link together "Richard II." and the first part of" Henry IV." FIRST PART "The History of Henrie the Fourth, With the battell at Ar the time when Shakespeare selected the portion of history included in the following play, as a fit subject for dramatic representation, the stage was in possession of an old play, entitled, "The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth," of which three early impressions, one printed in 1598, and two others without date, have come down to us: a copy of one edition without date is in the Collection of the Duke of Devonshire; and, judging from the type and other circumstances, we may conclude that it was anterior to the impression of 1598, and that it made its appearance shortly after 1594, on the 14th of May of which year it was entered on the Stationers' Registers. Richard Tarlton, who died in 1588, was an actor in that piece, but how long before 1588 it had been produced, we have no means of ascertaining. It is, in fact, in prose, although many portions of it are printed to look like verse, because, at the date when it first came from the press, blank-verse had become popular on the stage, and the bookseller probably was desirous of giving the old play a modern appearance. Our most ancient public dramas were composed in rhyme: to rhyme seems to have succeeded prose; and prose, about the date when Shakespeare is believed to have originally come to London, was displaced by blank-verse, intermixed with couplets and stanzas. "The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth" seems to belong to the middle period; and as Stephen Gosson, in his "School of Abuse," 1579, leads us to suppose that at that time prose was not very usual in theatrical performances, it may be conjectured that "The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth" was not written until after 1580. Of the four quarto editions of "Richard II." the most valuable, for its readings and general accuracy beyond all dispute, is the impression of 1597. The other three quartos were, more or less, printed from it, and the folio of 1623 seems to That a play upon the events of the reign of Henry V. was have taken the latest, that of 1615, as the foundation of its upon the stage in 1592, we have the indisputable evidence of text; but, from a few words found only in the folio, it may Thomas Nash, in his notorious work, "Pierce Penniless, his seem that the player-editors referred also to some extrinsic Supplication," which went through three editions in the same authority. It is quite certain, however, that the folio copied year: we quote from the first, (Sign. H 2.) where he says, obvious and indisputable blunders from the quarto of 1615." What a glorious thing it is to have Henry the Fifth repreThere are no fewer than eight places where the folio omits sented on the Stage, leading the French King prisoner, and passages inserted in the quartos, in one instance to the de- forcing him and the Dolphin to sweare fealtie." We know struction of the continuity of the sense, and in most to the also that a drama, called "Harry the V.," was performed by detriment of the play. Hence not only the expediency, but Henslowe's Company on the 28th November, 1595, and it apthe absolute necessity of referring to the quarto copies, from pears likely that it was a revival of "The Famous Victories," which we have restored all the missing lines, and have dis- with some important additions, which gave it the attraction tinguished them by placing them between brackets. of a new play; for the receipts (as we find by Henslowe's year 1 It may perhaps be inferred that there was an intention to publish the "history," with these "new additions," in 1603: at all events, in that the right in "Richard II.""Richard III." and "Henry IV." part i. was transferred to Matthew Law, in whose name the plays came out when the next editions of them appeared. The entry relating to them in the books of the Stationers' Company runs thus: "27 June 1603 "Matth. Lawe] in full Courte, iij Enterludes or playes. The first of Richard the 3d. The second of Richard the 2d. The third of Henry the 4, the first pte. all Kings." 2 "Ich unternehme darzuthun, dass Shakespeare's Anachronismen mehrentheils geflissentlich und mit grossem Bedacht angebracht sind."-Ueber dramatische Kunst and Litteratur, vol. ii. 43. Diary) were of such an amount as was generally only pro- As the year did not then end until the 25th March, the 25th duced by a first representation. Out of this circumstance may have arisen the publication of the early undated edition in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire. The reproduction of "The Famous Victories" by a rival company, and the appearance of it from the press, possibly led Shakespeare to consider in what way, and with what improvements, he could avail himself of some of the same incidents for the theatre to which he belonged. This event would at once make the subject popular, and hence, perhaps, the re-impression of "The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth" in 15981. The year 1596 may possibly have been the date when Shakespeare wrote his "Henry IV." Part i. It is to be observed, that the incidents which are summarily dismissed in one old play, are extended by our great dramatist over three-the two parts of " Henry IV." and "Henry V." It is impossible to institute any parallel between "The Famous Victories" and Shakespeare's dramas; for, besides that the former has reached us evidently in an imperfect shape, the immeasurable superiority of the latter is such, as to render any attempt to trace resemblance rather a matter of contrast than comparison. Who might be the writer of "The Famous Victories," it would be idle to speculate; but it is decidedly inferior to most of the extant works of Marlowe, Greene, Peele, Kyd, Lodge, or any other of the more celebrated predecessors of Shakespeare. Sir John Oldcastle is one of the persons in "The Famous Victories ;" and no doubt can be entertained that the character of Sir John Falstaff, in the first part of Shakespeare's "Henry IV.," was originally called Sir John Oldcastle. If any hesitation could formerly have been felt upon this point, it must have been recently entirely removed by Mr. Halliwell's very curious and interesting tract, "On the character of Sir John Falstaff, as originally exhibited by Shakespeare," 12mo. 1841. How the identity of Oldcastle and Falstaff could ever have been questioned after the discovery of the following passage in a play by Nathaniel Field, called, "Amends for Ladies," 1618, it is difficult to comprehend: the lines seem to us decisive: "Did you never see The play where the fat knight, hight Oldcastle, Did tell you truly what this honour was?" This can allude to nothing but to Falstaff's speech in Act v. sc. 2, of the ensuing play; and it would also show (as Mr. Halliwell points out) that Falstaff sometimes "retained the name of Oldcastle after the author had altered it to that of Falstaff." This fact is remarkable, recollecting that "Amends for Ladies" could hardly have been written before 1611, that prior to that date no fewer than four editions of "Henry IV." Part i., had been printed, on the title-pages of which Falstaff was prominently introduced, and that he was called by no other name from the beginning to the end of that drama. The case is somewhat different with respect to Shakespeare's 'Henry IV." Part ii., which contains a singular confirmatory piece of evidence that Falstaff was still called Oldcastle after that continuation of the "history" had been written and performed. In Acti. sc. 2 of the drama, Old. is given as the prefix to one of Falstaff's speeches. The error is met with in no other part of the play, and when the MS. for the quarto, 1600, was corrected for the press, this single passage escaped observation, and the ancient reading was preserved until it was expunged in the folio of 1623. Malone and Steevens, in opposition to Theobald, argue that Old. was not meant for Oldcastle, but was the commencement of the name of some actor: none such belonged to Shakespeare's company, and the probability is all in favour of Theobald's supposition. This change must have been made by Shakespeare anterior to the spring of 1598, because we then meet with the subsequent entry in the Stationers' Registers, relating to the earliest edition of "Henry IV." Part i. "25 Feb. 1597. Andrew Wisse] A booke intitled the Historye of Henry the iiiith, with his battaile of Shrewsburye against Henry Hottspurre of the Northe with the conceipted Mirth of Sir John Falstaffe3." 1 The third edition of "The Famous Victories" was printed after James I. came to the throne: it has no date, but it states on the titlepage that "it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants." This assertion was probably untrue, the object of the stationer being to induce buyers to believe that it was the same play as Shakespeare's work, which was certainly performed by "the King's Majesty's servants." From this impression Steevens reprinted it in the "Six Old Plays." 8vo. 1779. 2 The same conclusion may perhaps be drawn from the mention of "fat Sir John Oldcastle," in "The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinarie," 1604, 4to, a tract recently reprinted, under the editorial care of Mr. Halliwell, for the Percy Society. It is February, 1597, was of course the 25th February, 1598; and pursuant to the above entry, Andrew Wise published the first edition of "The History of Henry IV." with the date of 1598: we may infer, therefore, that it was ready, or nearly ready, to be issued at the time the memorandum was made at Stationers' Hall: on the title-page, "the humorous conceits. of Sir John Falstalffe" are made peculiarly obvious. certain, then, that before the play was printed, the name of Oldcastle had been altered to that of Falstaff. The reason for the change is asserted to have been, that some descendants of "Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham," (as he is called upon the title-page of a play which relates to his history, printed in 1600+,) remonstrated against the ridicule thrown upon the character of the protestant martyr, by the introduction into Shakespeare's drama of a person bearing the same name. Such, unquestionably, may have been the case; but it is possible also that Shakespeare, finding that his play, and his Sir John Oldcastle were often confounded with "The Famous Victories" and with Sir John Oldcastle of that drama, made the change with a view that they should be distinguished. That he did not quite succeed, is evident from the quotation we have made from Field's "Amends for Ladies." Respecting the manner in which Falstaff was attired on the stage in the time of Shakespeare, we meet with a curious passage in a manuscript, the handwriting of Inigo Jones, the property of the Duke of Devonshire. The Surveyor of the Works, describing the dress of a person who was to figure in one of the court masques, early in the reign of James I., says, that he is to be dressed "like a Sir John Falstaff, in a robé of russet, quite low, with a great belly, like a swollen man, long moustachios, the shoes short, and out of them great toes, like naked feet: buskins, to show a great swollen leg." We are, perhaps, only to understand from this description,, that the appearance of the character was to bear a general resemblance to that of Sir John Falstaff, as exhibited on the stage at the Globe or Blackfriars' Theatres. Although we are without any contemporaneous notices of the performance of Shakespeare's "Henry IV." Part i., there cannot be a doubt that it was extraordinarily popular. It went through five distinct impressions in 4to, in 1598, 1599, 1604, 1608, and 1613, before it was printed in the first folio. There was also an edition in 1639, which deserves notice, because it was not a reprint of the play as it had appeared either in the first or second folios, but of the 4to. of 1613, that text being for some reason preferred. Meres introduces "Henry the ÏVth" into his list in 1598, and we need feel little doubt that he alluded to Part i., because, on the preceding page, (fo. 281, b) he makes a quotation from one of Falstaff's speeches,-"there is nothing but roguery in villainous man," though without acknowledging the source from which it was taken. We may be tolerably sure, however, that “ Henry IV." Part ii., had then been produced by Shakespeare, but it is not distinguished by Meres, and he also makes no mention of "Henry V.," the events of whose reign, to his marriage with Catherine of France, were included in the old play of "The Famous Victories." With regard to the text of this play, it is unquestionably found in its purest state in the earliest 4to. of 1598, and to that we have mainly adhered, assigning reasons in our notes when we have varied from it. The editors of the folio, 1623, copied implicitly the 4to. impression nearest to their own day, that of 1613, adopting many of its defects, and, as far as we can judge, resorting to no MS. authority, nor to the previous quartos of 1598, 1599, 1604, and 1608. Several decided errors, made in reprint of 1599, were repeated and multiplied in the subsequent quarto impressions, and from thence found their way into the folio. Near the end of Act i. we meet with a curious proof of what we have advanced: we there find a line, thus distinctly printed in the 4to, 1598 : "I'le steale to Glendower and Lo: Mortimer :" that is, "I'll steal to Glendower and Lord Mortimer," Lo: being a common abbreviation of "Lord;" but the composi 3 There is another entry, under date 27th June, 1603, by which "Henry the 4 the first pte." seems to have been transferred by Wise to Law, for whom the edition of 1604 was in fact printed. 4 Mr. Halliwell does not seem to have been aware, when speaking of "The First part of the true and honorable History of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham," a play attributed to Shakespeare on the title-page of most of the copies printed in 1600, that two other copies of it have recently been discovered, which have no author's name. Hence it might be inferred, that the original title-page was cancelled at the instance of our great dramatist, and another substituted. |