lowers of the Earl of Effex, on the 7th of February 1600-1, defired a company of actors to perform King Richard II. they alleged "that the play was old, and that they should have a lofs in playing it.' Our author's performance, however, might have been intended; and the players, perhaps, confidered a play as old, that had been three or four years in poffeffion of the ftage. They might have only meant, that it was not of that feafon. Indeed, I the rather think that this was their meaning, because there is no trace in the Stationers' books, nor in any ancient catalogue that I have feen, of any play on this fubject, except that of Shakspeare. In further fupport of his hypothefis, Dr. Farmer relies on the doctrines of indefeafable right contained in this play, which, he thinks, could not have been agreeable to the infurgents abovementioned. But they do not appear to have been so much concerned about the fentiments of the piece, (with which, perhaps, they were unacquainted) as defirous to behold the catastrophe that it exhibits.-This, I conceive, may be collected from the paragraph fubjoined to that which Dr. Farmer has quoted-" So earneft hee (Merricke) was, to fatisfy his eyes with a fight of that tragedie, which he thought foone after his Lord fhould bring from the stage to the state." 16. RICHARD III. 1597. Entered at the Stationers' hall, Oct. 20, 1597. Printed in that year. 17. FIRST PART OF K. HENRY IV. 1597. Entered Feb. 25, 1597, according to our prefent reckon ing, 1598. Written therefore probably in 1597. Printed in 1598. 18. THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, 1598. Entered July 22, 1598; and mentioned by Meres in that year. Publifhed in 1600. 19. ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS Well, 1598. All's Well that Ends Well was not registered at Stationers' NOTE: • Proceedings at the Arraignment of Sir Gilly Merricke, &ta. 160 hall, hall, nor printed, till 1623; but probably is the play mentioned by Meres, in 1598, under the title of Love's Labour Won. This comedy was, I believe, alfo fometimes called A Bad Beginning makes a Good Ending; for i find that a play with that title, together with Hotspur, Benedict and Beatrix, and feveral others, was acted at court, by John Heminge's company in the year 1613: and no fuch picce is to be found, in any collection however complete or extenfive, nor is fuch a title preferved in any lift or catalogue whatfoever. As the titles of Hotfpur, and Benedict and Beatrix, were substituted in the place of the first part of K. Henry IV. and Much Ado about Nothing, it is probable that the other was only a new name for All's Well that Ends Well. By an entry in the hand writing of king Charles I. in a copy of the fecond edition of our author's plays in folio, which formerly belonged to that monarch, and is now in the poffeffion of Mr. Steevens, it appears, that this play was alfo fometimes called Mr. Parolles. 20. Sir John Oldcastle, 1598, This play was entered at Stationers' hall, August 4, 1600, and printed in the fame year. It was acted very early in that year, by the Lord Chamberlain's fervants, before Monf. Vereiken, ambaffador to Queen Elizabeth from the Archduke and the Infanta. ... The prologue to this piece furnishes a ftrong argument to fhew that it was not written by Shakspeare. The following lines particularly deferve our attention: "The doubtfull title, (gentlemen) prefixt "To ftop which fcruple let this breefe fuffice: "Since forg'd invention former time defac'd." NOTE. On the 16th of March 1599, in fact 1600. See the Letters of the Sydney Family, vol. II. p. 175. The The character here alluded to, which the author was ap prehenfive the audience might confound with his virtuous peer, appears to have been one that had been exhibited in the old play of King Henry V. (" prior to Shakspeare's) under the name of Sir John Oldcastle. This exhibition was the forg'd invention that had defaced former time. In this old play are found the outlines of fome of the characters which Shakfpeare has introduced in the two parts of King Henry IV. and King Henry V. The Sir John Oldcastle of the old play was probably the prototype of Sir John Falstaff. It is not neceffary here to enter into the queflion, whether Faiftaff was originally called by the name of Oldcastle. Whether be was or not, these lines could not, I apprehend, have come from the pen of Shakspeare. If Falftaff originally went by the name of Oldcastle, Shakspeare was then as guilty as the author of the old Henry V. and he never would have arraigned himself for exhibiting the pampered glutton and aged debauchee, under the name of Sir John Oldcastle, the good lord Cobham. Though this were not the cafe, and the fat knight bore originally the name of Falftaff, Shakspeare would hardly have touched upon this ftring; for the reprefenting of Sir John Faftolfe, a celebrated general, and a knight of the garter, under the character of a debauchee and a counfellor to youthful fin, was no lefs a forgery, and a departure from the truth of hiftory, than the other. Our author himself too feems to ridicule this very prologue, in his epilogue to the Second Part of King Henry H "For Oldcastle dyed a martyr, and this is not the man." This furely ought to decide the question. This reference induces me to think that Sir John Oldeafle was written before the Second Part of King Henry IV. 21. SECOND PART OF K. HENRY IV. 1598. The Second Part of K. Henry IV. was entered on the Sta NOTES. The old K. Henry V. must have been written before 1590, for Tarleton, who acted two parts in it, (the Clown, and the Judge) died in that year. * If the allufion fhould be fuppofed to have been, not to the Oldcastle of the old play, but to our author's Sir John Falstaff, as exhibited in THE FIRST PART of King Henry IV. fuch a fuppofition will not at all weaken the argument in the text. VOL. I. tioners' tioners' books, Auguft 23, 1600, and was printed in that year. It was probably written in the latter end of the year 1598, for from the epilogue it appears to have been compofed before K. Henry V. which itfelf muft have been written in, or before, 1599. It is obfervable that the FIRST PART of K. Henry IV. was entered at Stationers' hall, in the beginning of the year 1598, by the name of "A Baoke entitled the Hiftorie of Henry the Fourth, &c." At that time, it is probable, the author had not conceived the idea of exhibiting Falstaff in a fecond drama, and therefore that play was not then diftinguished by the title of The FIRST Part. When the fame piece was entered about a year afterwards, on the 9th of Jan. 1598-9, it was entitled, "A book called The FIRST Part of the Life and Reign of K. Henry IV. extending to the end of the first year of his reign." The poet having now compofed two plays on this fubject, diftinction became neceffary. The SECOND Part of K. Henry IV. we may, therefore, conclude with certainty, was written in the interval between these two entries, that is, fome time in the year 1598, probably in the latter part of it; for Meres, who in his Wit's Treasury, (which was not publifhed before September in that year) has enumerated Henry IV. among our author's plays, does not speak of it as a first part, nor does he mention it as a play in two parts. His words are thefe: "As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the beft for comedy and tragedy, among the Latines, fo Shakespeare, among the English, is the most excellent in both kinds for the ftage: for comedy, witnefs his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love's Labour Loft, his Love's Labour Wonne, his Midsummer Night's Dream, and his Merchant of Venice; for tragedy, his Richard II. Richard III. HENRY IV. K. John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet." The following allufion to one of the characters in this play, which is found in Ben Jonfon's Every Man out of his Humour, A& V. Sc. ii. firft acted in 1599, is an additional NOTES. The circumftance of Hotfpur's death in this play, and its being an hiftorical drama, I fuppofe, induced Meres to denominate the Firft Part of Henry F. a tragedy. Wit's Treafury, p. 282. authority authority for fuppofing the Second Part of K. Henry IV. tổ have been written in 1598. "Savi. What's he, gentle Monf. Brifk? Not that gentleman ? "Faft. No, Lady; this is a kinfman to Justice Silence." 22. K. HENRY V. 1599. Mr. Pope thought that this hiftorical drama was one of our author's latest compofitions; but he was evidently miftaken. King Henry V. was entered on the Stationers' books, August 14, 1600, and printed in the fame year. It was written after the Second Part of K. Henry IV. being promifed in the epilogue of that play; and while the Earl of Ef fex was in Ireland. Lord Effex went to Ireland April 15, 1599, and returned to London on the 28th of September in the fame year. So that this play (unless the paffage relative to him was inferted after the piece was finished) muft have been composed between April and September, 1599. Supposing that paffage a fubfequent infertion, the play was probably not written long before; for it is not mentioned by Meres in 1598. The prologue to Ben Jonson's Every Man in his Humour feems clearly to allude to this play; and, if we were sure that it was written at the fame time with the piece itself, might induce us, notwithstanding the filence of Meres, to place King Henry V. a year or two earlier; for Every Man in bis Humour is faid to have been acted in 1598. But I suspect that the prologue which now appears before it was not writ NOTES. * See the Chorus to the fifth act of King Henry V. "He rather prays you will be pleased to fee Prologue to Every Man in his Humour. Thefe lines formerly appeared to me fo decifive with respect to the date of this piece, that I have quoted them, in a note on K. Henry V. to fhew that this historical drama must have been written before 1598; an opinion from which, for the reasons above ftated, I am now difpofed to recede. ten |