| Welcome to PhiloLogic |
| home | the ARTFL project | download | documentation | sample databases | |
|
William Aldis Wright [1863–1866], The works of William Shakespeare edited by William George Clark... and John Glover [and William Aldis Wright] (Macmillan and Co., London) [word count] [S10701]. To look up a word in a dictionary, select the word with your mouse and press 'd' on your keyboard.
1. An adaptation of the play for the stage, published by Capell in 1758, is quoted in our notes as ‘Capell's Version.’ 2. 3.
Another edition was issued in the same year. As the title-pages are absolutely identical, it has hitherto been supposed that there was but one edition, and that the discrepancies between the copies were due to printers' corrections made while the sheets were passing through the press. A careful examination of the different copies has however convinced us that there were two distinct editions, and certain minute indications have enabled us to decide which of the two was the earlier. This we call Q1. The second we term Q2. We have consulted three copies of Q1; which are found in the Bodleian, the Capell Collection, and the British Museum. The last is marked in the catalogue C. 12. h. 5. Of Q2 we have collated two copies, one in the Duke of Devonshire's library and one in the British Museum, marked C. 34. k. 36. Another copy of Pericles 1609, is in the Public Library at Hamburg. From a sample of the various readings given in a note by M. Tycho Mommsen, in the preface to his reprint of Wilkins' Novel, we recognize it as a copy of Q2. Besides these, we know of no other copies of the two editions of 1609. There is also in the British Museum (C. 34. k. 37) a unique copy of an edition in Quarto dated 1611, which formerly belonged to Mr Halliwell. The title-page is as follows:
This we call Q3. It is printed from a copy of the second Quarto. Two leaves containing part of the second Act are wanting. It is so extremely ill printed, especially in the latter part, that it is in many cases impossible to determine with certainty the punctuation and even the reading. The Quarto of 1619, our Q4, of which there are two copies in the British Museum and one in the Capell Collection, has the following title-page:
The signatures of this edition are a continuation of those of ‘The Whole Contention &c.,’ published without date but by the same publisher, shewing that the two plays originally formed part of the same volume. See Vol. V. of the present work, Pref. pp. ix. x. The edition of 1619 seems to have been printed from that of 1611. With the average number of misprints, it presents many corrections of the text, sometimes certain and generally happy, but all probably conjectural. There was also an edition in Quarto of 1630, which we term Q5. Two copies of this are found in the British Museum (C. 34. k. 39, and C. 34. k. 40), which differ in the imprint but are in other respects identical. The imprint of the former, which is the same as that in the Capell Collection, is as follows:
That of the latter: LONDON, &break; Printed by J. N. for R. B. 1630. &break; This fifth Quarto is extremely incorrect. Another edition, which we call Q6, was printed five years later, from the fourth Quarto. It bears the following imprint: Printed at London by Thomas Cotes, 1635. The play of Pericles was not included in either the first or the second Folio. It was however reprinted, together with other plays wrongly attributed to Shakespeare, in the Folio of 1664 and in that of 1685. The text of the third Folio is taken from that of the sixth Quarto, but with a considerable number of conjectural alterations. A duodecimo reprint of Pericles, taken from the fourth Folio, appeared in 1734. Rowe included, in both his editions, Pericles and the other plays given as Shakespeare's in the third and fourth Folios but not found in the first and second. They were excluded by Pope and subsequent editors, nor were they republished in any edition of Shakespeare till Malone printed them in his Supplement to Steevens' Shakespeare of 1778, which appeared two years later. Malone, acting on the suggestion of Farmer, included Pericles in his edition of Shakespeare, published in 1790. Steevens in 1793 followed his example, and Pericles has been republished by all subsequent editors except Mr Keightley. Mr Knight reprinted it with Locrine and the other spurious plays. There can be no doubt that the hand of Shakespeare is traceable in many of the scenes, and that throughout the play he largely retouched, and even rewrote, the work of some inferior dramatist. But the text has come down to us in so maimed and imperfect a state that we can no more judge of what the play was when it left the master's hand than we should have been able to judge of Romeo and Juliet if we had only had the first Quarto as authority for the text. The plot was founded on Twine's novel, called ‘The Patterne of Painefull Aduenters:’ first published in 1576 and reprinted by Mr Collier in the first volume of Shakespeare's Library, together with the story of Appollinus, the Prince of Tyr, from Gower's Confessio Amantis, a poetical version of the same romance. Another novel by George Wilkins, avowedly based on the acted drama, was published in 1608, with the following title-page:
Before the imprint is a picture of John Gower. The work, which is interesting as being the first of all ‘Tales from Shakespeare’ and of considerable use in determining the text of the play, was reprinted by M. Tycho Mommsen in 1857, from a copy in the Public Library at Zurich, with a Preface of his own and an Introduction by Mr Collier. 4.
The printer's device is an anchor, with the motto, ‘Anchora Spei.’ This we call Q1. It is printed with remarkable accuracy, doubtless from the author's own manuscript. A second edition, also in Quarto, was published in the following year. The title-page is exactly similar to that of the first edition, except that the date 1594 is substituted for 1593. We call this Q2. A third edition was issued in 1596 from the same printing office, with the following imprint: Imprinted at London by R. F. for &break; Iohn Harison. &break; 1596. &break; This edition, like all the subsequent ones, is in Octavo, but in order to avoid using a different set of symbols, we term it Q3. The fourth edition, Q4, bears this imprint:
In the Bodleian copy the title-page is supplied in manuscript. This edition was printed from Q3. It contains many erroneous readings, due, it would seem, partly to carelessness and partly to wilful alteration, which were repeated in later copies. The Bodleian copy once belonged to Malone and was given to him by Farmer. He says in a manuscript note: ‘I have carefully collated the Venus and Adonis with the edition of 1596, with which I have been furnished by Mr T. Warton; and have noted the variations in the margin. March 24, 1785. E. M.’ Like most careful collations, which have not been revised, this of Malone's leaves many discrepancies unrecorded. Two new editions were published, as we have discovered, in the year 1602.
There is extant, as we believe, only a single copy of each, one in the British Museum and one in the Bodleian Library. The imprint of the former is as follows: Imprinted at London for William Leake, &break; dwelling at the signe of the Holy Ghost, in &break; Paules Church-yard. 1602. &break; The title-page of the Bodleian copy is the same as that of the Museum copy, excepting that it has ‘vulgus: mihi’ for ‘vulgus, mihi,’ and ‘Pauls Churchyard’ for ‘Paules Church-yard,’ and the printer's device is different. The similarity of title-page and identity of date have led to the supposition that these were copies of the same edition, but a comparison of the two proves to demonstration that they were different editions. The Bodleian copy is very inferior to the Museum copy in typography, in the quality of the paper, and in accuracy. The Museum copy formerly belonged to the late Mr George Daniel, who has written in a fly-leaf the following note: ‘No other copy of this excessively rare edition is known. Mr Evans was wrong in stating that a copy is in the Malone Collection in the Bodleian Library. No copy is mentioned in the catalogue, nor is there one to be found there.’ Mr Daniel had overlooked the existence of the Bodleian copy of 1602, but, as it turns out, his own copy is unique after all. That in the Bodleian has the autograph of R. Burton, author of the Anatomy of Melancholy. We term the Museum copy Q5 and the Bodleian Q6. Neither was printed from the other, but both from Q4. The next edition known to us has the following imprint: LONDON, &break; Printed for W. B. 1617. &break; This we term Q7. The next, our Q8, has the imprint: LONDON, &break; Printed for I. P. 1620. &break; A copy exists in the Capell collection. Dr Bandinell also purchased one for the Bodleian, but it cannot now be found. The next edition, which we call Q9, is remarkable as having been printed at Edinburgh. It is also in Octavo but longer than the English editions. The title-page is as follows:
We believe that this was printed from a manuscript which the writer had copied from Q6, but in which he had introduced, probably by happy conjecture, several emendations agreeing with the text of the three earliest editions. The only copy known to exist is in the British Museum. An edition in the Bodleian wanting the title-page, but catalogued with the date 1630, is referred to by us as Q10. Whatever be the true date, it is certainly earlier than the next, which we call Q11, bearing the following imprint:
In the Bodleian catalogue a copy is mentioned of the date 1675, but none such exists in the library itself. 5. The first edition of LVCRECE. &break; The running title is ‘The Rape of Lvcrece.’ Copies of this edition are in the Duke of Devonshire's Library, the British Museum, and the Library of Sion College. In the Bodleian there are two copies, differing from each other in some important readings, which we have distinguished as Q1 (Bodl. 1) and Q1 (Bodl. 2). The former is marked ‘Malone 34’; the latter ‘Malone Add. 886’. The second edition was printed in 1598. In order to avoid a different notation we have called this, though in reality an octavo, Q2. It has the following title: LVCRECE. &break; A copy of this edition is in the Capell collection, which has been collated by Capell with a copy of Q1, apparently that in Sion College Library. The third edition, our Q3, also in small octavo, was published in 1600, with the following title: LVCRECE. &break; The only copy of this edition with which we are acquainted is in the Bodleian Library. It is bound up with the Venus and Adonis of 1600 and was given by Farmer to Malone. In 1607 appeared, also in octavo, what we have quoted as Q4. Its title is: LVCRECE. &break; In 1616, the year of Shakespeare's death, it was reissued with the author's name as ‘newly revised’; but as the readings are generally inferior to those of the earlier editions there is no reason for attaching any importance to an assertion which was merely intended to allure purchasers. The title-page of this edition, which we call Q5, is as follows: THE &break; RAPE &break;
Copies of this edition are in the British Museum and the Bodleian. The sixth and last of the earlier editions of any importance appeared in 1624 with the following title: The &break; Rape &break; of &break; Lvcrece. &break; By &break; Mr. William Shakespeare. &break; Newly Reuised. &break; LONDON. &break; Printed by I. B. for Roger Iackson, and are &break; to be sold at his shop neere the Conduit &break; in Fleetstreet. 1624. &break; A copy of this edition, which we call Q6, is in the Grenville Collection in the British Museum. Through the kindness of Mr P. H. Frere, we have been enabled to collate another copy which formerly belonged to Sir John Fenn, the editor of the Paston Letters. Of these six editions, the fifth and sixth differ considerably in their readings from the first four, which follow each other without any important variations. An edition bearing the date of 1632 is mentioned in Lowndes' Bibliographer's Manual, ed. Bohn, but we have not been able to find it. The last of all, which we have quoted as Q7, appeared in 1655 and forms part of the same volume with Quarles's Banishment of Tarquin. 6. The SHAKE-SPEARES, &break; In others the imprint is AT LONDON &break; By G. Eld for T. T. and are &break; to be solde by Iohn Wright, dwelling &break; at Christ Church gate. &break; 1609. &break; 7. At the end of the Sonnets was printed in the same
edition 8. THE &break; PASSIONATE &break;
In the middle of sheet C is a second title: SONNETS &break; To sundry notes of Musicke. &break; AT LONDON &break; Printed for W. Iaggard, and are &break; to be sold by W. Leake, at the Grey- &break; hound in Paules Churchyard. &break; A unique copy of this edition, bound up with the Venus and Adonis of 1620, is in the Capell Collection. It was once in the possession of ‘honest’ Tom Martin of Palgrave, and a MS. note informs us that the volume cost a former owner ‘but 3 halfpence.’ It was reprinted, together with some poems by Thomas Heywood, in 1612, and the whole were attributed to Shakespeare. The title at first stood thus: THE &break; PASSIONATE &break; PILGRIME. &break; or &break; Certaine Amorous
Sonnets, &break; betweene In the Bodleian copy of this edition Malone has written the following note. ‘All the poems from Sig. D. 5 were written by Thomas Heywood, who was so offended at Jaggard for printing them under the name of Shakespeare, that he has added a postscript to his Apology for Actors, 4to 1612, on this subject, and Jaggard in consequence of it appears to have printed a new title-page to please Heywood, without the name of Shakespeare in it. The former title-page was no doubt intended to be cancelled, but by some inadvertence, they were both prefixed to this copy and I have retained them as a curiosity.’ The corrected title-page on the opposite leaf, A. verso, is, except in the use of italics and Roman letters, the same, omitting ‘By W. Shakespere.’ This is called ‘The third Edition,’ but no other between 1599 and 1612 is known to exist. In 1640 a number of the Sonnets, together with some of the Poems from The Passionate Pilgrim and A Lover's Complaint, were collected into a volume, with some translations from Ovid and other pieces evidently not by Shakespeare, and published with the following title: POEMS: &break; The order of the poems in this volume is very arbitrary, but it is followed in the editions by Gildon (1710), and Sewell (1725 and 1728), as well as those published by Ewing (1771) and by Evans (1775). In all these editions, Sonnets 18, 19, 43, 56, 75, 76, 96 and 126 are omitted, and Sonnets 138 and 144 are given in the form in which they appear in the ‘Passionate Pilgrim.’ It was in 1709 (according to Lowndes, Bibliographer's Manual, ed. Bohn), that the whole of Shakespeare's Minor Poems were issued in a small 8vo form, under the title, A Collection of Poems, in Two Volumes; Being all the
Miscellanies of Mr. William Shakespeare, which were Publish'd
by himself in the Year 1609. and now correctly Printed
from those Editions. The First Volume contains, I. No editor's name is given, and in Bohn's edition of Lowndes it is wrongly assigned to Gildon, who, as appears by Sewell's Preface, edited the poems in 1710 with an introduction containing remarks upon the plays. The readings from this edition are therefore quoted by us as those of Lintott. In Capell's copy, with which he evidently intended to go to press, there are many corrections and emendations, which we have referred to as ‘Capell MS.’ This volume appears afterwards to have passed through Farmer's hands, as there is a note in his handwriting at the end of the ‘Advertisement.’ Possibly therefore it may have been seen by Malone, and as many of the alterations proposed by Capell were adopted by Malone or subsequent editors, we have indicated this coincidence by quoting them as ‘Malone (Capell MS.),’ or the like. Capell has left in the same volume a preface to the poems in MS., from the date to which we learn that it was prepared for press in 1766. The separate title-pages to the pieces in this collection all bear the same date 1609, which is that of the first edition of the Sonnets. But in another copy of the first volume only, which is in the Bodleian, the title-pages bear different dates and are in other respects different, though, so far as we have been able to judge, the text of the poems in the Capell and Bodleian copies is identical. 9. We have been unable to see a copy of this extremely rare book, and have therefore been compelled to depend upon the excellent facsimile of the poem published by Mr Halliwell in the last volume of his recently completed edition of Shakespeare. For the collation of those pieces in the Passionate Pilgrim which are printed in somewhat different forms in England's Helicon, Griffin's Fidessa, and by Barnfield, we are indebted to the kindness of Mr H. Bradshaw, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. The originals are in the Bodleian Library. Mr Bradshaw informs us that the pieces which were printed by Barnfield, numbered VIII and [XXI] in the present edition, are not, as is usually stated, in ‘The Encomion of Lady Pecunia,’ but among the ‘Poems: in diuers humors’ at the end of a volume of which the first poem is ‘The Complaint of Poetrie, for the Death of Liberalitie.’ This though bound with ‘The Encomion &c.’ has a distinct title and separate signatures.
We have now brought to completion a task which has cost us nearly six years' labour. The labour, though severe, has been lightened by the assistance and sympathy of many friends1 note, and of others personally unknown to us: we have throughout been encouraged by kindly criticism, and by a confident hope that the result would be a contribution of permanent value to English literature. Neither, again, is the work of collating and editing, at least when undertaken on the large scale which we have attempted, merely the dry, mechanical, repulsive task which it is popularly supposed to be. The judgement has to be exercised at every step, in the settlement of the text, in the application of rules previously laid down, and in discriminating between essential and unessential variations. Thus the labour of a conscientious editor; however humble and unambitious in its aim, is neither servile nor mechanical. If it is often unduly depreciated in public opinion, this is in some degree because each successive editor, being bound to correct the errors of his predecessors, necessarily brings these into undue prominence, while as he cannot in all cases acknowledge, he seems to ignore, the services which they have rendered. ‘The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.’ The plan which we have adopted gives to each his due, and will, we trust, secure a tardy justice for those whose merits have not been sufficiently recognized. But an editor of Shakespeare, even if he misses his meed of fame and praise, finds a sufficient reward in the labour itself. He feels that he is not, in Hallam's phrase, ‘trimming the lamp of an ancient sepulchre,’ but trimming a lamp which lights modern dwellings, and which will continue to light the dwellings of many generations of men yet to come. It is no mean task, but a noble privilege, to live in daily intercourse with the greatest of merely human men, to acquire a constantly increasing familiarity with the thoughts of the subtlest of thinkers and the language of the most eloquent of poets. The more we endeavour to fathom and to grasp the mind of Shakespeare, the more we appreciate his depth and his sublimity. As our knowledge grows, so also our admiration and our pleasure in the study increase, dashed only by a growing sense of the textual imperfections and uncertainties which stand between the author and his readers. For, besides the recognized difficulties, we are convinced that there are many passages, still easily scanned and construed, and therefore not generally suspected of corruption, which nevertheless have not been printed exactly as they were first written. Some ruder hand has effaced the touch of the master. And these blemishes cannot be entirely removed, even by the most brilliant conjectural criticism, because the materials are wanting. Little more can be done than has been done already by successive editors and commentators. The attentive readers of our notes will, we are persuaded, come to the same conclusion that we have come to: viz. that the value of these men's labours has been greatly underrated. Nothing can be more unfounded than the notion, so prevalent in Germany, that Shakespeare has till of late years been neglected and undervalued by his countrymen. Even in England this erroneous assertion is frequently repeated, as if it were too obvious to require proof. The genius of Shakespeare and the stupidity of his commentators is a popular antithesis as trite as it is unjust. In this despised class are found some of the most famous and most accomplished Englishmen of their time. And it is a study of great interest to follow them as they exercise their varied talents on the noblest field which the literature of their country afforded: Rowe, himself a dramatist of no mean skill; Pope, with his deep poetic insight; Theobald, with his fine tact and marvellous ingenuity; Hanmer, whose guesses, however they may pass the sober limits of criticism, are sometimes brilliant, often instructive and never foolish; Warburton, audacious and arrogant, but now and then singularly happy; Johnson, with his masculine common sense; Capell, the most useful of all, whose conscientious diligence is untiring, whose minute accuracy is scarcely ever at fault; Steevens, Malone, Blackstone, Farmer, Tyrwhitt, Rann, Boswell, Singer and Sidney Walker, with all their varied learning; together with their successors of the present generation in England, Germany and America, who have devoted themselves to the illustration of Shakespeare as to a labour of love. For the contempt into which the earlier editors have fallen, they may thank, in part, their own quarrels. People are content to take each at his rival's estimate. Theobald is held to be the worst of dunces because Pope made him the hero of the Dunciad. Bearing this in mind, we have great satisfaction in the thought that there is scarcely an editor of Shakespeare now living to whom we are not indebted for some act of courtesy and kindness. In the course of our inquiries we have been led to the study of other authors contemporary with or immediately subsequent to Shakespeare, and have thus gathered materials for the elucidation of his text, which must serve for another work, since our limits have compelled us rigorously to exclude them from this. Nevertheless the footnotes of the present work are in effect explanatory, because they contain not only all the material for criticism, but also, in a condensed form, the results of successive speculations. A vast mass of recent criticism, to which we hope to do full justice hereafter, finds no record in these pages, because its results, as far as the improvement of the text is concerned, have been anticipated by earlier commentators. We take this opportunity of re-stating, more explicitly than before, some of the rules by which we have been guided in the present work, together with our reasons for adopting them. 1. We have given the text according to modern spelling. A recurrence to antiquated and disused forms would be productive of far more inconvenience than advantage, What is called ‘modern’ spelling is, in fact, not so much an alteration of the old spelling as a reduction to uniformity, which obviates numberless misinterpretations. Hardly a word can be found which was not in old days occasionally spelt as we spell it now. If Shakespeare himself could come to life again and read his own works in a modern edition, nothing in the spelling would seem to him strange. Moreover the editions which come nearest to the hand of Shakespeare are, as a rule, the most uniform, that is, the most modern, in spelling: it follows therefore that the variations found in other copies are due to the caprice or indifference of transcribers or printers, and are not generally worth recording, much less worth repeating. We have recorded every variation which seemed instructive or curious in itself, besides all such as might help in the determination of doubtful readings. Had there been any ground for supposing that Shakespeare corrected his own works as they passed through the press, we might have thought ourselves bound to retain the original spelling and even the punctuation, at least in those works which were printed during his lifetime. But in all probability not one of his works was thus corrected, nor, with few exceptions, were they printed from the author's manuscript. In earlier writers, like Chaucer, spelling is of importance, because it indicates the changes which were undergone by words before they came into their present shape, and so marks the various stages in their history, while at the same time it helps to preserve the inflections which were disused altogether before the time of Elizabeth. In the case of Spenser, the spelling is an essential part of the affectedly archaic character of his chief poem, and on this account should be retained. But none of these reasons apply to Shakespeare. 2. We have somewhere read, or heard, a suggestion that the text of the first Folio ought to be taken as a basis for a critical edition of Shakespeare. Those who have made such a proposal can scarcely be aware of the multitude of errors in reading and punctuation, and of the important omissions, which are found in the first Folio. That volume is far from containing the ‘complete works’ of Shakespeare. And in the great majority of cases where a previous Quarto exists, the Quarto and not the Folio is our best authority. Besides, another reprint of the first Folio is unnecessary, since the splendid reproduction by photo-zincography, executed under Mr Staunton's superintendence, and the extremely accurate reprint published by Mr L. Booth, and edited, as we understand, by Mr Charles Wright. 3. In the selection of readings for the text we have conformed to the practice of all judicious editors of ancient classics. The more experience an editor has, the more cautious he will be in the introduction of conjectural emendations, not, assuredly, because his confidence in the earliest texts increases, but because he gains a greater insight into the manifold and far-removed sources of error. The insertions, marginal and interlinear, and doubtless occasional errors, of the author's own manuscript, the mistakes, deliberate alterations and attempted corrections of successive transcribers and of the earliest printer, result at last in corruptions which no conjecture can with certainty emend. Therefore in all cases of doubt we have inclined to the retention of the text which has the best authority. But we have throughout endeavoured to bear in mind that rules are good servants but bad masters, and that high above all rules stands the golden rule of moderation dictated by common sense. 4. While dealing freely with the spelling, we have desired to leave intact the diction of Shakespeare. This has not prevented us from adopting frequent corrections of the grammar of the most ancient texts. Many false concords found in the Folio do not occur in the corresponding passages of the earlier Quartos and are consequently due to the copyist or printer; we are therefore justified in adopting similar corrections in other cases where the earlier authority is wanting. No doubt, grammatical rules were less rigorous in Shakespeare's time, and the necessities of rhyme often led him to employ constructions which would be inadmissible now. These we of course retain. And again, in the discourse of his clowns and rustics the author used a language suitable to the speakers. This no one would think of changing. But it is sometimes difficult to draw the line and determine what belongs to orthography and what to diction. With all possible vigilance, perfect consistency is unattainable. 5. With regard to punctuation, we have introduced no novelty. As a general rule we have been sparing in the use of stops, but the clearness of each sentence has been our paramount consideration. 6. In the use of the apostrophe as a guide to the metrical pronunciation, which is very arbitrary and irregular in the older texts and has been generally disused by modern poets, we have adopted the following rule: to retain the ‘e’ when it is an essential part of the verb and to substitute an apostrophe where the ‘e’ is a part of the inflection. Thus we write in all cases ‘loved,’ ‘assumed,’ approved,’ not ‘lov'd,’ ‘assum'd,’ ‘approv'd,’ and ‘touch'd,’ ‘mark'd,’ ‘restrain'd,’ whenever the metre requires them to be so pronounced. This via media, which avoids metrical uncertainties on the one hand and verbal ambiguities on the other, is sanctioned by the practice of the Poet Laureate. 6. We have retained one archaism: namely, ‘'ld’ as an abbreviation of ‘would’, the most general form in the Quartos and Folios. Our reason is that such a form cannot possibly mislead a reader, while the modern form ‘'d’, used indifferently as the abbreviation of ‘would’ and ‘had’, leads to obscurity in all cases where the present tense and the past participle of a verb are identical in form, or where the present tense of one verb is identical with the past participle of another. Subjoined is a list in chronological order of the editions which we have completely collated, and of the works which we have consulted throughout. We have not included a multitude of other books which we have occasionally referred to, but which have not furnished us with any various readings. Neither, except in one instance, have we included periodicals in our list. Many names attached in our foot-notes to conjectural emendations will not be found in the following list, because the authors did not publish their notes in a separate form, but only communicated them to different editors or to periodicals, or else left them in manuscript. 1577. Holinshed, Chronicles. 1579. Plutarch's Lives, trans. North. 1591. The Troublesom Raigne of Iohn King of England. 1593. Venus and Adonis. 1594. Venus and Adonis. 1594. Lucrece. 1594. The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous houses of Yorke and Lancaster. 1595. The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of York. 1596. Venus and Adonis. 1596. Griffin, Fidessa. 1597. Richard II. 1597. Richard III. 1597. Romeo and Juliet. 1597. Weelkes, Madrigals. 1598. Richard II. 1598. Love's Labour's Lost. 1598. Henry IV. part I. 1598. Richard III. 1598. Lucrece. 1598. Barnfield, The Encomion of Lady Pecunia, &c. 1599. Romeo and Juliet. 1599. Henry IV, part I. 1599. The Passionate Pilgrim. 1600. Much Ado about Nothing. 1600. Midsummer Night's Dream Q1. 1600. Midsummer Night's Dream Q2. 1600. Merchant of Venice Q1. 1600. Merchant of Venice Q2. 1600. Henry IV. part 2. 1600. The Cronicle History of Henry the fift. | |||