May 8, 1605. Simon Stafford.] A booke called the tragicall Historie of King Leir and his three Daughters, as it was lately acted. 123 John Wright.] By assignment from Simon Stafford and consent of Mr. Leake, the tragical History of King Lear, &c. provided that Simon

Stafford shall have the printing of this book* ^note. ibid.

July 3, 1605. Tho. Pavyer.] A ballad of a lamentable Murder done in Yorkshire, by a Gent. upon two of his owne Children, sore wounding his Wife and Nurse, &c† ^note. 126

Jan. 22, 1606. Nich. Ling.] Romeo and Juliett.
Love's Labour Lost.
Taming of a Shrewe. 147

Aug. 6, 1607. Geo. Elde.] A booke called the Comedie of the Puritan Wydowe. 157 b.

Aug. 6, 1607. Tho. Thorpe.] A comedy called What you Will‡ ^note. ibid.

Oct. 22, 1607. Arth. Johnson.] The Merry Devil of Edmonton§ ^note. 159 b.

Nov. 19, 1607. John Smythwick.] A booke called Hamlett.
The Taminge of a Shrewe.
Romeo and Julett.
Love's Labour Lost. 161

Nov. 26, 1607. Nath. Butter and John Busby.] Mr. William Shakespeare, his Hystorie of King Lear, as it was played before the King's Majestie at Whitehall, upon St. Stephen's night at Christmas last, by his Majesties servants playing usually at the Globe on the Bank-side. 161 b.

April 5, 1608. Joseph Hunt and Tho. Archer.] A book called the

Life and Death of the Merry Devil of Edmonton, with the pleasant Pranks of Smugg the Smith, Sir John, and mine Hoste of the George, about their stealing of Venison. By T. B* ^note. 165 b.

May 2, 1608. Mr. Pavyer.] A booke called a Yorkshire Tragedy, written by Wylliam Shakespeare. 167

May 2, 1608. Edw. Blount.] The book of Pericles Prince of Tyre. 167 b. A book called Anthony and Cleopatra. ibid.

Jan. 28, 1608. Rich. Bonian and Hen. Whalley.] A booke called the History of Troylus and Cressida. 178 b.

May 20, 1609. Tho. Thorpe.] A booke called Shakespeare's Sonnets. 183 b.

Oct. 16, 1609. Mr. Welby.] Edward the Third. 189

Dec. 16, 1611. John Browne.] A booke called the Lyfe and Death of the Lo. Cromwell, by W. S. 214 b.

Nov. 29, 1614. John Beale.] A booke called the Hystorie of Lord Faulconbridge, bastard Son to Richard Cordelion† ^note. 256 b.

Feb. 16, 1616. Mr. Barrett.] Life and Death of Lord Cromwell. 279

March 20, 1617. Mr. Snodham.] Edward the Third, the play. 288

Sept. 17, 1618. John Wright.] The comedy called Mucedorus‡ ^note. 293 b.

July 8, 1619. Nich. Okes.] A play called the Merchaunt of Venice. 303
Vol. D.

Oct. 6, 1621. Tho. Walkely.] The tragedie of Othello the Moore of Venice. 21

Nov. 8, 1623. Mr. Blount and Isaak Jaggard.] Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedyes and Tragedyes, soe many of the said Copies as are not formerly entered to other men.

Viz. Comedy. The Tempest. Comedy. Two Gentlemen of Verona. Comedy. Measure for Measure. Comedy. The Comedy of Errors. Comedy. As You Like it. Comedy. Alls Well that Ends Well. Comedy. Twelfe Night. Comedy. The Winter's Tale. Historie. The Third Part of Henry the Sixt. Historie. Henry the Eight. Tragedie. Coriolanus. Tragedie. Timon of Athens. Tragedie. Julius Cæsar. Tragedie. Mackbeth. Tragedie. Anthonie and Cleopatra. Tragedie. Cymbeline. 69

Dec. 14, 1624. Mr. Pavyer.] Titus Andronicus.
Widow of Watling Street. 93

Feb. 23, 1625. Mr. Stansby.] Edward the Third, the play. 115

April 3, 1626. Mr. Parker.] Life and Death of Lord Cromwell. 120

Aug. 4, 1626. Edw. Brewster, Rob. Birde.] Mr. Pavyer's right in Shakespeare's plays, or any of them.

Sir John Oldcastle, a play.
Tytus Andronicus.
Hystorie of Hamblett.
127

Jan. 29, 1629. Mr. Meighen.] Merry Wives of Windsor. 193

Nov. 8, 1630. Ric. Cotes.] Henrye the Fift.
Sir John Oldcastle.
Tytus Andronicus.
Yorke and Lancaster.
Agincourt.
Pericles.
Hamblett.
Yorkshire Tragedy. 208 The sixteen plays in p. 69, were assigned by Tho. Blount to Edward Allot, June 26, 1632. 109

Edward Allott was one of the publishers of the second Folio, 1632.

It is worth remark, that on these books of the Stationers' Company, Titus Andronicus, Venus and Adonis, two parts of King Henry VI. Locrine, Widow of Watling Street, King Richard II. King Richard III. King Henry IV. &c. are the first performances attributed to Shakespeare. Thus might the progress of his dramatic art be ascertained, were we absolutely sure that his productions were set down in chronological arrangement on these records of ancient publication. It may be added, that although the private interests of play-houses had power to suspend the printing of his theatrical pieces, they could not have retarded the appearance of his poems; and we may therefore justly date the commencement of his authorship from the time when the first of them came out, viz. his Venus and Adonis, when he was in the twenty-ninth year of his age. In the dedication of this poem to the Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare calls it “The first heir of his invention.”

Of all his undisputed plays, the only one omitted on the books of the Stationers' Company, is King John. The same attention to secure a lasting property in the works of Ben Jonson and Beaumont and Fletcher, does not appear to have been exerted; as of the former I have met with no more than seven or eight entries, and of the latter a still less considerable

number. Beaumont died in 1615, Fletcher in 1625, and Jonson in 1637. My researches, however, were not continued below the year 1632, the date of the second folio edition of Shakespeare.

Let it likewise be added to the praises of our author, that if he did not begin to write till 1593, nor ceased till within three years of his death, which happened in 1616, in the course of twenty years he had produced no less than thirty-five plays, admitting that eight others (among which is to be reckoned Titus Andronicus* ^note) were spurious. I seize this opportunity, however, to express my doubts concerning all but the last mentioned piece, and Locrine. Locrine has only the letters W. S. prefixed to it, and exhibits internal proofs that it was not only the composition of a scholar but of a pedant. See a note to the List of Plays ascribed to Shakespeare by the Editors of the two later folios, or the Compilers of Ancient Catalogues, where the same assertion is more fully supported. See also another note at the beginning of Troilus and Cressida. Neither has it ever yet been sufficiently proved that it was once customary to set the names of celebrated living authors at full length in the title pages to the works of others, or to enter them under these false colours in the books at Stationers' Hall. Such frauds indeed have been attempted at a later period, but with little success. The most inconsiderable of all the pieces rejected by the editors of Shakespeare, is the Yorkshire Tragedy; and yet in 1608 it was both registered and published with his name. At this time too, he was probably in London, presiding at the Globe theatre, in consequence of the licence granted by K. James I. to him and his fellow-comedians in 1603. The Yorkshire Tragedy is only one out of four short dramas which were exhibited for the entertainment of a single evening, as the title page informs us; and perhaps would have been forgotten with the other three, but that it was known to have been the work of our celebrated author. Such miscellaneous representations were not uncommon, and the reader will find a specimen of them in the tenth volume of Mr. Seyward's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. Shakespeare, who has expressed such a solicitude that his clowns should speak no more than was set down for them, would naturally have taken some opportunity to shew his impatience at being rendered answerable, in a still more

decisive manner, for entire compositions which were not his own. It is possible likewise, that the copies of the plays omitted in the first folio, had been already disposed of to proprietors, out of whose hands they could not be redeemed; or if Heminge and Condell were discerning friends to the reputation of their associate, conscious as they might have been that such pieces were his, they would have omitted them by design, as inferior to his other productions. From this inferiority, and from a cast of style occasionally different, nothing relative to their authenticity can with exactness be inferred; for as Dr. Johnson very justly observes on a similar occasion, “There is little resemblance between the first works of Raphael and the last.” But could it even be proved that these rejected pieces were not among the earliest effusions of Shakespeare, such proof would by no means affect their authenticity, as both Dryden and Rowe, after having written their best plays, are known to have produced others, which reflect a very inconsiderable degree of honour on their memory.

It has hitherto been usual to represent the ancient quartos of our author as by far more incorrect than those of his contemporaries; but I fear that this representation has been continued by many of us, with a design to magnify our own services rather than to exhibit a true state of the question. The reason why we have discovered a greater proportion of errors in the former than in the latter, is because we have sought after them with a greater degree of diligence; for let it be remembered, that it was no more the practice of other writers than of Shakespeare, to correct the press for themselves. Ben Jonson only (who, being versed in the learned languages, had been taught the value of accuracy) appears to have superintended the publication of his own dramatic pieces; but were those of Lilly, Chapman, Marlow, or the Heywoods, to be revised with equal industry, an editor would meet with as frequent opportunities for the exertion of his critical abilities, as in these quartos which have been so repeatedly censured by those who never took the pains to collate them, or justify the many valuable readings they contain; for when the character of them which we have handed down, was originally given, among typographical blunders, &c. were enumerated all terms and expressions which were not strictly grammatical, or not easily understood. As yet we had employed in our attempts at explanation only such materials as casual reading had supplied;

but how much more is requisite for the complete explanation of an early writer, the last edition of the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer may prove a sufficient witness; a work which in respect of accuracy and learning is without a rival, at least in any commentary on an English poet. The reader will forgive me if I desert my subject for a moment, while I express an ardent wish that the same editor may find leisure and inclination to afford us the means of reading the other works of the father of our poetry, with advantages which we cannot derive from the efforts of those who have less deeply and successfully penetrated into the recesses of ancient Italian, French, and English literature. —An author has received the highest mark of distinction, when he has engaged the services of such a commentator.

The reader may perhaps be desirous to know by whom these quartos of Shakespeare are supposed to have been sent into the world. To such a curiosity no very adequate gratification can be afforded; but yet it may be observed, that as these elder copies possess many advantages over those in the subsequent folio, we should decide perversely were we to pronounce them spurious. They were in all probability issued out by some performer, who deriving no benefit from the theatre except his salary, was uninterested in that retention of copies, which was the chief concern of our ancient managers. We may suppose too that there was nothing criminal in his proceeding; as some of the persons whose names appear before these publications, are known to have filled the highest offices in the company of Stationers with reputation, bequeathing legacies of considerable value to it at their decease. Neither do I discover why the first manuscripts delivered by so careless a writer to the actors, should prove less correct than those which he happened to leave behind him, unprepared for the press, in the possession of the same fraternity. On the contrary, after his plays had past for twenty years through the hands of a succession of ignorant transcribers, they were more likely to become maimed and corrupted, than when they were printed from papers less remote from the originals. It is true that Heminge and Condell have called these copies surreptitious, but this was probably said with a view to enhance the value of their own impression, as well as to revenge themselves as far as possible on those who had in part anticipated the publication of works from which they expected considerable gleanings of advantage, after their first harvest on the stage

was over.—I mean to except from this general character of the quartos, the author's rough draughts of the Merry Wives of Windsor and Romeo and Juliet; together with the play of King Henry V. and the two parts of King Henry VI; for these latter carry all the marks of having been imperfectly taken down by the ear, without any assistance from the originals belonging to the playhouses in which they were first represented.

A preceding table of those ancient copies of the plays of Shakespeare which his commentators have really met with and consulted, if compared with the earliest of these entries on the books already mentioned, may tempt the reader to suppose that some quartos have not yet been found, from which future assistance may be derived. But I fear that no such resources remain; as it seems to have been the practice of the numerous theatres in the time of Shakespeare, to cause some bookseller to make immediate entries of their new pieces, as a security against the encroachments of their rivals, who always considered themselves as justified in the exhibition of such dramas as had been enfranchised by the press. Imperfect copies, but for these precautions, might have been more frequently obtained from the repetition of hungry actors invited for that purpose to a tavern; or something like a play might have been collected by attentive auditors, who made it their business to attend succeeding representations with a like design* ^note. By these means, without any intent of hasty publication, one company of players was studious to prevent the trespasses of another† ^note. Nor did their policy conclude here; for I have not unfrequently met with registers of both tragedies and comedies, of which the titles were at some other time to be declared. Thus, July 26, 1576, John Hunter enters “A new and pleasant comedie or plaie, after the manner of common condycyons;” and one Fielder, in Sept. 1581, prefers his right to four others, “Whereof he will bring the titles.” “The famous Tragedy of the Rich Jewe of Malta,” by Christopher Marlow, is ascertained to be the property of Nich. Ling and Tho. Millington, in May 1594, though it was

not printed by Nich. Vavasour till 1633, as Tho. Heywood, who wrote the preface to it, informs us. In this manner the contending theatres (seventeen in number* ^note

I may add, that the difficulty of procuring licences was another reason why some theatrical publications were retarded and others entirely suppressed. As we cannot now discover the motives which influenced the conduct of former Lord Chamberlains and Bishops, who stopped the sale of several works, which nevertheless have escaped into the world, and appear to be of the most innocent nature, we

may be tempted to regard their severity as rather dictated by jealousy and caprice, than by judgment and impartiality. See a note to my Advertisement which follows Dr. Johnson's Preface.

The public is now in possession of as accurate an account of the dates, &c. of Shakespeare's works as perhaps will ever be compiled. This was by far the most irksome part of my undertaking, though facilitated as much as possible by the kindness of Mr. Longman of Pater-noster Row, who readily furnished me with the three earliest volumes of the records of the Stationers' Company, together with accommodations which rendered the perusal of them convenient to me though troublesome to himself.

Mr. Malone has attempted in the following pages to ascertain the chronological order in which the plays of Shakespeare were written. By the aid of the registers at Stationers' Hall, and such internal evidence as the pieces themselves supply, he has so happily accomplished his undertaking, that he only leaves me the power to thank him for an arrangement which I profess my inability either to dispute or to improve.

Previous section

Next section