صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

first written, but we know that it was acted on the Rich furnishes us with the title of no work to celebration of the Readers' Feast at the Middle which he was indebted; but we may conclude that, Temple on February 2, 1602, according to our mod either immediately or intermediately, he derived his ern computation of the year. This fact we have on chief materials from the Italian of Bandello, or from the evidence of an eye-witness, a barrister, whose the French of Belleforest. Diary, in his own hand-writing, is preserved in the Upon the novel by Bandello two Italian plays were British Museum. The memorandum runs, literatim, composed, which were printed, and have come down as follows:

lo our time. The title of one of these is given by “Feby: 2, 16012). At our fenst we had a play called Manningham, where he says that Shakespeare's Twelve-Night, or What You Will, much like the comedy of "Twelfth-Night" was “most like and neere to that errors, or Menechmi in Plautus, but most like and neere to in Italian called Inganni." It was first acted in that in Italian, called Inganni. A good practise in it to 1547, and the earliest edition of it, with which I am with him, by counterfayting a letter, as from his lady. in genacquainted, did not appear until 1582, when it bore erail termes telling him what shee liked best in him, and the title of Gl Inganni Comedia del Signor N. $. prescribing his gestures, inscribing his apparaile, &c., and the other Italian drama, founded upon Bandello's then when he came to practise, making him beleeve they novel, bears a somewhat similar title :-GW Ingantooke him to be mad."

nali Commedia degl' Accademici Intronati di Siena, This remarkable entry was pointed out in the which was several times printed ; lust, perhaps, in " History of English Dramatic Poetry and the 1611, 12mo. Whether our great dramatist saw Stage," 8vo., 1831, and the Rev. Joseph Hunter, in either of these pieces before he wrote his “Twelfthhis “ Disquisition on The Tempest," Svo, 1839, has Night" may admit of doubt; but looking at the ascertained that it was made by a person of the name

terms Manningham employs, it might seem as if it of Manningham. Even if it should be objected that were a matter understood, at the time "Twelfthwe have no evidence to show that this Comedy was Night” was acted at the Temple on February 2, composed shortly prior to its representation at the 1602, that it was founded upon the Inganni. Middle Temple, it may be answered, that is is capa

In the details of the plot, as well as in the conble of proof that it was written posterior (o the pub. duct and characters of the two plays, there is some lication of the translation of Linschoter's “ Discours resemblance between Gl Inganni and "Twelfthof Voyages into the East and West Indies." In A. Night;" but our great dramatist has given an actual, ii., sc. 2, Maria says of Malvolio: “He does smile as well as an intellectual elevation to the whole subhis face into more lines than are in the new map, / ject, by the manner in which he has treated it; and with the augmentation of the Indies.” Linschoten's has converted whut may, in most respects, be con“Discours of Voyages" was published in folio insidered a low comedy into a fine romantic drama. English in 1598, and in that volume is inserted The likeness between Gl Ingannati and "Twelfth“the new map with the augmentation of the In- Night” is certainly, in some points of the story, dies." Meres takes no notice of “Twelfth-Night" stronger than that between Inganni and Shakein his list, published in the same year, and we may speare's drama; but to neither can we say, with conclude that the Comedy was not then in existence. any degree of certainty, that our great dramatist The words " new map," employed by Shakespeare, resorted, although he had perhaps read both, when may be thought to show that Linschoten's * Dis- he was considering the best mode of adapting to the cours” had made its appearance long before stage the incidents of Bandello's novel. There is "Twelfth-Night" was produced; but on the whole, no hint, in any source yet discovered, for the smallest we are inclined to fix the period of its composition portion of the comic business of "Twelfth-Night." at the end of 1600, or in the beginning of 1601: it In both the Italian dramas it is of the most homely might be acted at the Globe in the summer of the and vulgar materials, by the intervention of empirics, same year, and from thence transferred to the Mid- braggarts, pedants, and servants, who deal in the dle Temple about six months afterwards, on account coarsest jokes, and are guilty of the grossest bufof its continued popularity.

foonery. Shakespeare shows his infinite superiority Several originals of “ Twelfth-Night," in English, in each department: in the more serious portion of French, and Italian, have been pointed out, nearly all his drama he employed the incidents furnished by of them discovered within the present century.

predecessors as the mere scaffolding for the erecA voluminous and various author of the name of tion of his own beautiful edifice; and for the comic Barnabe Rich, who had been brought up a soldier, scenes, combining so admirably with, and assisting published a volume, which he called * Rich his so importantly in the progress of the main plot, ho Farewell to Military Profession," without date, but seems, as usual, to have drawn merely upon his own between the years 1578 and 1581: a reimpression interminable resources. of it appeared in 1606, and it contains a novel en It was an opinion, confidently stated by Coleridge titled " Apolonius and Silla,” which has many points in his lectures in 1818, that the passage in Act ii. of resemblance to Shakespeare's comedy. If our sc. 4, beginning great dramatist at all availed himself of its incidents, "Too old, by heaven : let still the woman take he must of course have used an earlier edition than

An elder than herself," &c. that of 1606. One minute circumstance in relation had a direct application to the circumstances of his to it may deserve notice. Manningham in his Diary marriage with Anne Hathaway, who was so much calls Olivia a "widow," and in Rich's novel the senior to the poet. Some of Shakespeare's biog: lady Julina, who answers to Olivia, is a widow, but raphers had previously enforced this notion, and in Shakespeare she never had been married. It is others have since followed it up; but Coleridge possible that in the form in which the comedy was took the opportunity of enlarging eloquenaly on the performed on February 2, 1601-2, she was a widow, manner in which young poets have frequently conand that the author subsequently made the change; nected themselves with women of very ordinary but it is more likely, as Olivia must have been in personal and mental attractions, the imagination mourning for the loss of her brother, that Manning supplying all deficiencies, clothing the object of ham mistook her condition, and concluded hastily affection with grace and beauty, and furnishing her that she lamented the loss of her husband.

with every accomplishment.

THE WINTER'S TALE. 1607, and a third impression appeared in 1609: it

afterwards went though many editions; but it seems ("The Winter's Tale" was first printed in folio in 1623, where not unlikely that Shakespeare was directed to it, as

it occuples twenty-seren pages, from p. 277 to 303, and is a proper subject for dramatic representation, by the
the last in the division of Comedies." The back of p. third impression which came out the year before we
303 is left blank and unpaged. The later folios adopt the
same arrangeinent.)

suppose him to have commenced writing his “Win

ter's Tale." In many respects our great dramatist In the Stationers' Registers there is no earlier follows Greene's story very closely, as may be seen entry of " The Winter's Tale” than that of Novem- by the recent republication of " Pandosto" from the ber 8, 1623, when the publication of the first folio unique copy of 1588, in Shakespeare's Library:"" was contemplated hy Blount and Jaggard.

There is, however, one remarkable variation, which Three pieces of evidence tend to the conclusion, it is necessary to point out. Greene says: that “ The Winter's Tale" was brought out early in “ The guard left her" (the Queen) “ in this per'1611: the first of these has never until now been plexitie, and carried the child to the king, who, adduced, and it consists of the following entry in quite devoide of pity, commanded that without the account of the Master of the Revels, Sir George delay it should be put in the boat, having neither Buc, from the 31st of October, 1611, to the same sail nor rudder to guide it, and so to be carried into day, 1612 :

the midst of the sea, and there left to the wind and “ The 5th of November : A play called the winters wave, as the destinies please to appoint.” nightes Tayle."

The child thus " left to the wind and wave" is the No author's name is mentioned, but the piece was Perdita of Shakespeare, who describes the way in represented at Whitehall, by " the king's players," which the infant was exposed very differently, and as we find stated in the margin, and there can be no probably for this reason :-that in " The Tempest" hesitation in deciding that « The Winter's Night's he had previously (perhaps not long before) repreTayle" was Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale;" and that sented Prospero and Miranda turned adrift at sea in this play, as well as “The Tempest,” which is also the same manner as Greene had stated his heroine included in the same account, was probably selected to have been disposed of. When, therefore, Shakein consequence of its novelty and popularity. speare came to write " The Winter's Tale," instead

The second piece of evidence on this point has of following Greene, as he had usually done in other also recently come to light. It is contained in a minor circumstances, he varied from the original narMS. Diary, or Note-book kept by Dr. Simon For- rative, in order to avoid an objectionable similarity man, in which, under date of the 15th May, 1611, of incident in his two dramas. In representing he states that he saw " The Winter's Tale" at the Bohemia lo be a maritime country, Shakespeare Globe Theatre: this was the May preceding the adopted the popular notion, as it had been encourrepresentation of it at Court on the 5th November. aged since 1588 by Greene's " Pandosto." He gives a brief account of the plot, which ingeni

“ The idea of this delightful dramın" (says Coleously includes all the main incidents. We have ridge in his Lit. Rem.)" is a genuine jealousy of reason to think that “The Winter's Tale” was in disposition, and it should be immediately followed its first run on the 15th May, 1611, and that the by the perusal of Othello,' which is the direct conGlobe Theatre had not then been long opened for trast of it in every particular. For jealousy is a the season.

vice of the mind, a culpable tendency of temper,
The opinion that the play was then a novelty, is having certain well-known and well-defined effects
strongly confirmed by the third piece of evidence, and concomitants, all of which are visible in Leontes,
which Malone discovered late in life. He found á and I boldly say, not one of which marks its pres-
memorandum in the office-book of Sir Henry Her- ence in Othello."
bert, Master of the Revels, dated the 19th August,
1623, 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 THE LIFE AND DEATH OF KING
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 ("The

Life and Death of King John” was first printed in

the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-two pages; Forman saw it at the Globe.

viz. from p. I to p: 22 inclusive, a new pngination begin. It might have been composed by Shakespeare in ning with the "Histories." It occupies the same place the autumn and winter of 1610-11, with a view to

and the same space in the re-impressions of 1632, 1664,

and 1685.) its production on the Bank-side, as soon as the usual performances by the King's players com “ King Joax," the earliest of Shakespeare's menced there.

“Histories" in the folio of 1623, (where they are We have seen that "The Tempest” and “The arranged according to the reigns of the different Winter's Tale” were both acted at Whitehall, from monarchs,) first appeared in that volume, and the October, 1611, to October, 1612. How much older Registers of the Stationers' Company have been " The Tempest” might be than “The Winter's searched in vain for any entry regarding it: it is Tale," we have no means of determining; but not enumerated by Blount and Jaggard on the 8th there is a circumstance which shows that the com- November, 1623, when they inserted a list of the position of " The Tempest" was anterior to that of pieces, “ not formerly entered to other men," about The Winter's Tale ;" and this brings us to speak to be included in their folio: hence an inference of the novel upon which the latter is founded. might be drawn that there had been some previous

As early as the year 1588, Robert Greene printed entry of “King John" "to other men," and, perhaps, a tract called “ Pandosto : The Triumph of l'ime," even that the play had been already published. better known as “The history of Dorastus and It seems indisputable that Shakespeare's “ King Fawnia," the title it bore in some of the later copies. John” was founded upon an older play, three times As far as we now know, it was not reprinted until printed anterior to the publication of the folio of


1623: “ The first and second part of the trouble King Richard. As it hath been lately acted by the Kingng some Reign of John, King of England," came from

Maiesties sergants, at the Globe. By William Shake

speare. At London, Printed for Mathew law, and are the press in 1591, 1611, and 1622. Malone, and

to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe others who have adverted to this production, have of the Foxe. 1615." 4to. 39 leaves. obviously

not had the several impressions before In the folio of 1623, “ The life and death of King Richard them. The earliest copy, that of 1591, has no

the Second" occupies twenty-three pages, viz., from p.

23 to p. 45, inclusive. The three other folios reprint it in name on the title-page: that of 1611 has "W. Sh."

the same form, and in all it is divided into Acts and to indicate the author, and that of 1622, “W. Scenes.) Shakespeare," the surname only at length. Steevens once thought that the ascripțion of it to Shakespeare editions of " King Richard II.,” which preceded

ABOVE we have given the titles of four quarto by fraudulent booksellers, who wished it to be taken the publication of the folio of 1623, and which were for his popular work, was correct, but he subse all published during the lifetime of Shakespeare: quently abandoned this untenable opinion. How long the old "King John" had been in pos- and 1615. It will be observed that the title of the

they bear date respectively in 1597, 1598, 1608. session of the stage prior to 1591, when it was edition of 1608 states that it contains “new addioriginally printed, we have no precise information, tions of the Parliament Scene, and the deposing of but Shakespeare found it there, and took the course usual with dramatists of the time, by applying to

King Richard." The Duke of Devonshire is in ; his own purposes as much of it as he thought would possession of an unique copy, dated 1608, the title

of which merely follows the wording of the precebe advantageous. He converted the “two parts" | into one drama, and in many of its main features ding impression of 1598, omitting any notice of followed the story, not as he knew it in history, them. The name of our great dramatist first appears

"new additions," though containing the whole of but as it was fixed in popular belief. In some par. in connection with this historical play in 1598, as if ticulars he much improved upon the conduct of the Simmes the printer, and Wise the stationer, when incidents: for instance, in the first act of the old they printed and published their edition of 1597, “ King John," Lady Falconbridge is, needlessly and did not know, or were not authorized to state, that objectionably, made a spectator of the scene in which the bastardy of her son Philip is discussed Shakespeare was the writer of it. Precisely the before King Jolin and his mother. Another amend- same was the case with “King Richard III.," ment of the original is the absence of Constance printed and published by the same parties in the

same year. from the stage when the marriage between Lewis and Blanch is debated and determined. A third original production of “ Richard II.," and then of

We will first speak regarding the date of the material variation ought

not to be passed over with the period when it is likely that the "new addiout remark. Although Shakespeare, like the author tions" were inserted. or authors of the old "King John," employs the Bastard forcibly to raise money from the monasteries 1597, in the following manner :

It was entered on the Stationers' Register in in England, he avoids the scenes of extortion and ribaldry of the elder play, in which the monks and

• 29 Ang. 1597. nuns are turned into ridicule, and the indecency and

Andrew Wise.] The Tragedye of Richard the Seconde." licentiousness of their lives exposed.

This memorandum was made anterior, but perUpon the question, when "King John" was writ-haps only shortly anterior, to the actual publication ten by Shakespeare, we have no knowledge beyond of ** Richard II.," and it forms the earliest notice the fact that Francis Meres introduces it into his list of its existence. Malone supposes that it was writin 1598. Chalmers would assign the play to 1598, ten in 1593, but he does not produce a single fact but the chance seems to be, that it was written a or argument to establish his position. Chalmers short time before it was spoken of by Meres : we contended that a note of time was to be found in the

should be disposed to assign it to a date between allusions in the first and second Acts to the disturb11 1596 and 1598, when the old “King John” had ances in Ireland. It is quite certain that the rebel

gone a little out of recollection, and when Meres lion in that country was renewed in 1594, and prowould have had time to become acquainted with claimed in 1595 : but it is far from clear that any Shakespeare's drama.

reference to it was intended by Shakespeare.
Where the matter is so extremely doubtful, we
shall not attempt to fix on any particular year,

Meres mentions * Richard the 2" in 1598.

Respecting the new additions" of "the depo

sing of King Richard" we have some evidence, the {“The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath existence of which was not known in the time of beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Malone, who conjectured that this scene had Chamberlaine his Seruants. London Printed by Valen. originally formed part of Shakespeare's play, and shop in Paulus church yard at the signe of the Angel. the fear of offending Elizabeth," and not published,

was " suppressed in the printed copy of 1597, from 1597." 4to. 37 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath with the rest, until 1608. Such may have been the

beene publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lord case, but we now know that there were two separi

Chamberlaine his seruants. By William Shakespeare ate plays upon the events of the reign of Richard and are to be sold at his shop in Paules churchyard at the II., and the deposition seems to have formed a porsigne of the Angel. 1598." 4to. 36 leaves.

tion of both. «The Tragedie of King Richard the Second: with new

For the incidents of this “most admirable of all additions of the Parliament Scenne, and the deposing of King Richard. As it hath been lately acted by the Kinges Shakespeare's purely historical plays," as Coleridge Maiesties seruantes, at the Globe. By William Shake calls it, our great poet appears to have gone no farspeare. At London, Printed by W. W. for Mathew Law, ther than Holinshed, who was himself indebted to and are to be sold at his shop in Paule's churchyard, at Hall and Fabian. However, Shakespeare has nothe signe of the Foxe, 1608." « The Tragedie of King Richard the Second: with new

where felt himself bound to adhere to chronology additions of the Parliament Sceane, and the deposing of when it better answered his purpose to desert it.

4to. 39 leaves.

Thus, the Prince of Wales, afterwards Henry V., putable evidence of Thomas Nash, in his notorious is spoken of in Act v., sc. 3, as frequenting taverns work, Pierce Penniless, his Supplication," which and stews, when he was in fact only twelve years went through three editions in the same year: we old. This is exactly one of those anachronisms quote from the first, where he says, " What a gloriwhich, in the words of Schlegel, Shakespeare com ous thing it is to have Henry the Fifth represented mitted “purposely and most deliberately.". His on the Stage, leading the French King prisoner, design, of course, was in this instance to link to and forcing him and the Dolphin to sweare fealtie." gether" Richard II.” and the first part of " Henry We know also that a drama, called " Harry the V.," IV."

was performed by Henslowe's Company on the 28th Of the four quarto editions of " Richard II.” the November, 1595, and it appears likely that it was a most valuable, for its readings and general accuracy revival of “ The Famous Victories," with some imbeyond all dispute, is the impression of 1597. The portanı additions, which gave it the attraction of a other three quartos were, more or less, printed from new play; for the receipts (as we find by Henslowe's it, and the folio of 1623 seems to have taken the Diary) were of such an amount as was generally only latest, that of 1615, as the foundation of its text; produced by a first representation. The reproducbut, from a few words found only in the folio, it may tion of " The Famous Victories" by a rival company, seem that the player-editors referred also to some possibly led Shakespeare to consider in what way, extrinsic authority. It is quite certain, however, and with what improvements, he could avail himthat the folio copied obvious and indisputable blun- self of some of the same incidents for the theatre to ders from the quarto of 1615.

which he belonged. The year 1596 may therefore have been the date when Shakespeare wrote his “Henry IV.," Part i.

It is to be observed, that the incidents which are FIRST PART OF KING HENRY IV. by our great dramatist over three-the two parts of

summarily dismissed in one old play, are extended ("The History of Henrie the Povrth : With the battell at • Henry IV." and " Henry V." It is impossible to

Shrewsburie, betwer'ne the King and Lord Henry Percy, institute any parallel between "The Famous Vicgurdamed Henrie Hotspur of the North. With the hu- tories" and Shakespeare's dramas; for, besides that morous conceits of Sir John Falstalife... At London, the former has reached us evidently in an imperfect Churchyard, at the signe of the Angell

. 1598." " 4to. 40 shape, the immeasurable superiority of the latter is leaves

such, as to render any attempt to trace resemblance "The History of Henry the Fovrth; With the battell at rather a matter of contrast than comparison. Shrewsburie, betwrene the King and Lord Henry Percy,

Sir John Oldcastle is one of the persons in “The surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the hu. morous conceits of Sir lohn Falstalffe. Newly corrected Famous Victories;" and no doubt can be enterby W. Shnke-spenro. At London, Printed by s. s. for tained that the character of Sir John Falstaff, in the

Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Churchyard, at the first part of Shakespeare's “Henry IV.," was origi"The History of Henrie the Fourth. With the battell at nally called Sir John Oldcastle. "If any hesitation Shrewsburie

, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, could formerly have been felt upon this point, it surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the hu must have been recently entirely removed by Mr. morous conceits of Sir lohn Falstalffe. Newly corrected Halliwell's very curious

and interesting tract, “On Símmes, for Mathew Law, and are to be solde at his shop the character of Sir John Falstaff, as originally in Paules Churchyard, at the signe of the Fox, 1604." cxhibited by Shakespeare," 12mo, 1841. How the

identity of Oldcastle and Falstaff could ever have " The History of Henry the fourth, With the battell of been questioned after the discovery of the follow. Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With ing passage in a play by Nathaniel Field, called, the humorous conceites of Sir lohn Fulstalffe. Newly “Amends for Ladies," 1618, it is difficult to comcorrected by W. Shake-speare. London, Printed for prehend; the lines seem to us decisive :Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Churchyard, neere unto S. Augustines gate, at the signe

- Did you never see of the Foxe. 1608." 4to. 40 leaves, The 4to. edition of 1613 also consists of 40 leaves : and the

The play where the fut knight, hight Oldcastle, only differences between its title-page and that of 1608 are

Did tell you truly what this honor was g" the dute, and the statement that it was “ Printed by W. This can allude to nothing but to Falstaff's speech

W." In the folio of 1623, "The First Part of Henry the Fourth, in Act v. sc. 2, of the ensuing play; and it would with the Life and Death of Henry Sirnamed Hot-spvrre," also show (as Mr. Halliwell points out) that Falstaff occupies twenty-six pages, viz., from p. 46 to p. 73 inelu: sometimes" retained the name of Oldcastle after sive. In the later folios it is reprinted in the same form.) the author had altered it to that of Falstaff.”

At the time when Shakespeare selected the por Although we are without any contemporaneous tion of history included in the following play, as a fit notices of the performance of Shakespeare's " Hensubject for dramatic representation, the stage was ry IV." Part i., there cannot be a doubt that it was in possession of an old play, entitled, " The Famous extraordinarily popular. It went through five disVictories of Henry the Fifth," of which three early tinct impressions in 4to, in 1598, 1599, 1604, 1608, impressions, one printed in 1598, and two others and 1613, before it was printed in the first folio. without date, have come down to us : a copy of one Meres introduces " Henry the IVth" into his list in edition without date is in the Collection of the Duke 1598, and we need feel little doubt that he alluded of Devonshire; and, judging from the type and other to Part i., because, on a preceding page, he makes circumstances, we may conclude that it was anterior a quotation from one of Falstaff's speeches," there to the impression of 1598, and that it made its ap- is nothing but roguery in villainous man,"—though pearance shortly after 1594, on the 14th of May of without acknowledging the source from which it which year it was entered on the Stationers' Regis- was taken, ters. The fact of its being in prose, may lead to the With regard to the text of this play, it is unques. conjecture that it was not written until after 1580. tionably found in its purest state in the earliest 4to.

That a play upon the events of the reign of Henry of 1598, and to that we have mainly adhered. The V. was upon the stage in 1592, we have the indis- editors of the folio, 1623, copied implicitly the 4to

4to. 40 lenves,

With the hu.

impression nearest to their own day, that of 1613, honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. London

Printed by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Millington, and John adopting many of its defects, and, as far as we can

Busby: And are to be sold at his house in Carter Lane, judge, resorting to no MS. authority, nor to the

next the Powle head. 1600, 4to, 27 lenvee. previous quartos of 1598, 1599, 1604, and 1608. “The chronicle History of Henry the fift, With his battell

fought at Agin Court in France. Together with Auntient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruante. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Thomas Pauier, and are to

be sold at his shop in Cornhill, at the signe of the Cat and SECOND PART OF KING HENRY IV. Parvets, neare the Exchange. '1602." 4to. 26 lenves,

"The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, with his battell ("The Second part of Henrie the fourth, continuing to his fought nt Agin Court in France. Together with ancient death, and coronation of Henrie the fift.

Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right mours of Sir lohn Falstaffe, and swaggering Pistoll. As it Honournble the Lord Chamberlene his Seruants. Printed hath been suudrie times publikely acted by the right hon for T. P. 1608." 4to. 27 leaves. Ourahle, the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Written "The Life of Henry the Fift, in the folio of 1623, occupies by William Shakespeare, London Printed by V. S. for twenty-seven pages, viz. from p. 69 to p. 95 inclusive. Andrew Wise, and William Aspley. 1600." 4to. 43 leaves. The pagination from "Henry IV." Part ii, to "Henry V." Other copies of the same edition, in quarto, not containing is not continued, but a new series begins with "Henry V." Sign. E 5 and E 6, have only 41 leaves,

on p. 69, and is regularly followed to the end of the HisIn the folio, 1623, " The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, tories." The folio, 1632, adopts this error, but it is containing his Death : and the Coronation of King Henry avoided in the two later folio impressions.) the Fift," occupies twenty-nine pages in the division of “Histories," viz, from p. 74 to p. 102 inclusive, the last It is a circumstance deserving remark, that not two not being numbered. Pages 89 and 90, by an error one of the title-pages of the three quarto editions of the prese, are numbered 91 and 92. In the reprint of of “ Henry V." attributes the authorship of the play folios the pagination continued from the beginning to the to Shakespeare. The fact, no doubt, is, that there end of the volume.)

never was an authorized edition of “Henry V." until We may state with more certainty than usual, that it appeared in the folio of 1623, and that the quarto " Henry IV.” Part ii. was written before the 25th impressions were surreptitious, and were published February, 1598. Act ii. sc. 2, of the history" without the consent of the author, or of the combefore us contains a piece of evidence that Falstaff pany to which he was attached. The drama must was still called Oldcastle when it was written ; viz. played over and over again at the theatre, and yet

have enjoyed great popularity; it must have been that the prefix of old. is retained in the quarto, the public interest, as far as perusal is concerned, 1600, before a speech which belongs to Falstaff, and would seem to have been satisfied with a brief, rude, which is assigned to him in the folio of 1623. Now: and mutilated representation of the performance. we know from the entry itself that the name of Oldcastle was changed to that of Falstaff before dence of fraud : the earliest of them was not pub

The quartos bear strong external and internal evi. " Henry IV." Part i. was entered in the books of lished by a bookseller or booksellers by whom the Stationers' Company, on the 25th February; Shakespeare's genuine dramas were issued; and 1597–8. It requires no proof that " Henry IV." the second and third came from the hands of Thomas Part ii. was produced after “Richard II.” because Pavier, who was instrumental in giving to the world that play is quoted in it. The memorandum in the Stationers' Registers,

some pieces, with the composition of which Shakeprior to the publication of the following play, bears speare had no concern, though ascribed to him on date on 23d Aug. 1600, and it was made by Andrew the edition was made up, not from any authentic

the title-page. The internal evidence shows that Wise and William Aspley, who brought out " The Seconde Parte of the History of Kinge Henry the manuscript, nor even from any combination of the üzik," 4to, in that year.

separate parts delivered out to the actors by the Part ii. in 1600, but some copies vary importantly, the performance was taking place. A play called There was only one edition of " Henry IV." copyist of the theatre, but from what could be taken

down in short-hand, or could be remembered, while The play was evidently produced from the press in "Henry V.” was represented at Court on the 7th haste; and besides other large omissions, a whole January, 1605, as we learn from “The Extracts scene, forming the commencement of Act iii. was from the Accounts of the Revels," edited by Mr. left out. Most of the copies are without these pages, P. Cunningham, and printed by the Shakespeare but they are found in those of the Duke of Devon Society; and these important additions may have shire and Malone. The stationer must have dis- been inserted for that occasion. The entry runs, covered the error after the publication, and sheet

literatim, as follows:E was accordingly reprinted, in order to supply the defect.

"On the 7 of January was played the play of Henry The folio 1623 was taken from a complete copy

the fift." of the edition of 1600; and, moreover, the actor- In the margin we are informed that it was acted by opitors, probably from a play-house manuscript in his Majesty's players, but the name of the author is their hands, furnished many other lines wanting in not in this instance given, although “Shaxberd” is the quarto. On the other hand, the quarto, 1600, placed opposite the title of “ Measure for Measure," contains several passages not found in the folio, stated to have been exhibited on a preceding night. 1623. Our text includes both, in order that no syl- The fact that the actors belonged to Shakespeare's lable which came from the pen of Shakespeare may company renders it most probable that his play was be lost.

performed on the occasion.

Our opinion, then, is that Shakespeare did not originally write his “Henry V." by any means as we find it in the folio of 1623, and that it was first

produced without various scenes and speeches subKING HENRY V.

sequently written and introduced: we are perfectly ("The Cronicle History of Henry the filt, with his batten convinced that the three quarto editions of 1600, fought at Agin Court in France. Togither

with Auntient 1602, and 1608, do not at all contuin the play as it was Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right ucted in the first instance; but were hastily made

« السابقةمتابعة »