first written, but we know that it was acted on the celebration of the Readers' Feast at the Middle Temple on February 2, 1602, according to our modern computation of the year. This fact we have on the evidence of an eye-witness, a barrister, whose Diary, in his own hand-writing, is preserved in the British Museum. The memorandum runs, literatim, as follows: "Feby. 2, 1601[2]. At our feast we had a play called Twelve-Night, or What You Will, much like the comedy of errors, or Menechmi in Plautus, but most like and neere to that in Italian, called Inganni. A good practise in it to make the steward believe his lady widdowe was in love with him, by counterfayting a letter, as from his lady, in generail termes telling him what shee liked best in him, and prescribing his gestures, inscribing his apparaile, &c., and then when he came to practise, making him beleeve they tooke him to be mad." Rich furnishes us with the title of no work to which he was indebted; but we may conclude that, either immediately or intermediately, he derived his chief materials from the Italian of Bandello, or from the French of Belleforest. Upon the novel by Bandello two Italian plays were composed, which were printed, and have come down to our time. The title of one of these is given by Manningham, where he says that Shakespeare's "Twelfth-Night" was most like and neere to that in Italian called Inganni." It was first acted in 1547, and the earliest edition of it, with which I am acquainted, did not appear until 1582, when it bore the title of GP Inganni Comedia del Signor N. S. The other Italian drama, founded upon Bandello's novel, bears a somewhat similar title:-Gl' Ingannati Commedia degl' Accademici Intronati di Siena, which was several times printed; last, perhaps, in 1611, 12mo. Whether our great dramatist saw either of these pieces before he wrote his "TwelfthNight" may admit of doubt; but looking at the terms Manningham employs, it might seem as if it were a matter understood, at the time "TwelfthNight" was acted at the Temple on February 2, 1602, that it was founded upon the Inganni. In the details of the plot, as well as in the conduct and characters of the two plays, there is some resemblance between Gl' Inganni and "TwelfthNight;" but our great dramatist has given an actual, as well as an intellectual elevation to the whole subject, by the manner in which he has treated it; and has converted what may, in most respects, be considered a low comedy into a fine romantic drama. This remarkable entry was pointed out in the History of English Dramatic Poetry and the Stage," 8vo., 1831, and the Rev. Joseph Hunter, in his" Disquisition on The Tempest," 8vo, 1839, has ascertained that it was made by a person of the name of Manningham. Even if it should be objected that we have no evidence to show that this Comedy was composed shortly prior to its representation at the Middle Temple, it may be answered, that it is capable of proof that it was written posterior to the publication of the translation of Linschoten's "Discours of Voyages into the East and West Indies." In A. ii., sc. 2, Maria says of Malvolio: "He does smile his face into more lines than are in the new map, with the augmentation of the Indies." Linschoten's "Discours of Voyages" was published in folio in English in 1598, and in that volume is inserted "the new map with the augmentation of the Indies." Meres takes no notice of "Twelfth-Night" in his list, published in the same year, and we may conclude that the Comedy was not then in existence. The words "new map," employed by Shakespeare, may be thought to show that Linschoten's "Discours" had made its appearance long before "Twelfth-Night" was produced; but on the whole, we are inclined to fix the period of its composition at the end of 1600, or in the beginning of 1601: it might be acted at the Globe in the summer of the 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 of its continued popularity. Several originals of "Twelfth-Night," in English, French, and Italian, have been pointed out, nearly all of them discovered within the present century. A voluminous and various author of the name of Barnabe Rich, who had been brought up a soldier, published a volume, which he called "Rich his Farewell to Military Profession," without date, but between the years 1578 and 1581: a reimpression of it appeared in 1606, and it contains a novel entitled "Apolonius and Silla," which has many points of resemblance to Shakespeare's comedy. If our great dramatist at all availed himself of its incidents, he must of course have used an earlier edition than that of 1606. One minute circumstance in relation to it may deserve notice. Manningham in his Diary calls Olivia a 66 widow," and in Rich's novel the lady Julina, who answers to Olivia, is a widow, but in Shakespeare she never had been married. It is possible that in the form in which the comedy was performed on February 2, 1601-2, she was a widow, and that the author subsequently made the change; but it is more likely, as Olivia must have been in mourning for the loss of her brother, that Manningham mistook her condition, and concluded hastily that she lamented the loss of her husband. The likeness between Gl' Ingannati and "TwelfthNight" is certainly, in some points of the story, stronger than that between Gl' Inganni and Shakespeare's drama; but to neither can we say, with any degree of certainty, that our great dramatist resorted, although he had perhaps read both, when he was considering the best mode of adapting to the stage the incidents of Bandello's novel. There is no hint, in any source yet discovered, for the smallest portion of the comic business of "Twelfth-Night." In both the Italian dramas it is of the most homely and vulgar materials, by the intervention of empirics, coarsest jokes, and are guilty of the grossest buffoonery. Shakespeare shows his infinite superiority in each department: in the more serious portion of his drama he employed the incidents furnished by predecessors as the mere scaffolding for the erection of his own beautiful edifice; and for the comic scenes, combining so admirably with, and assisting so importantly in the progress of the main plot, he seems, as usual, to have drawn merely upon his own interminable resources. It was an opinion, confidently stated by Coleridge in his lectures in 1818, that the passage in Act ii. sc. 4, beginning "Too old, by heaven: let still the woman take had a direct application to the circumstances of his THE WINTER'S TALE. ["The Winter's Tale" was first printed in folio in 1623, where it occupies twenty-seven pages, from p. 277 to 303, and is the last in the division of Comedies." The back of p. 303 is left blank and unpaged. The later folios adopt the same arrangement.] In the Stationers' Registers there is no earlier entry of "The Winter's Tale" than that of November 8, 1623, when the publication of the first folio was contemplated by Blount and Jaggard. Three pieces of evidence tend to the conclusion, that "The Winter's Tale" was brought out early in 1611: the first of these has never until now been adduced, and it consists of the following entry in the account of the Master of the Revels, Sir George Buc, from the 31st of October, 1611, to the same day, 1612: "The 5th of November: A play called the winters nightes Tayle." No author's name is mentioned, but the piece was represented at Whitehall, by "the king's players," as we find stated in the margin, and there can be no hesitation in deciding that "The Winter's Night's Tayle" was Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale;" and that this play, as well as "The Tempest," which is also included in the same account, was probably selected in consequence of its novelty and popularity. 1607, and a third impression appeared in 1609: it afterwards went though many editions; but it seems not unlikely that Shakespeare was directed to it, as a proper subject for dramatic representation, by the third impression which came out the year before we suppose him to have commenced writing his "Winter's Tale." In many respects our great dramatist follows Greene's story very closely, as may be seen by the recent republication of "Pandosto" from the unique copy of 1588, in "Shakespeare's Library." There is, however, one remarkable variation, which it is necessary to point out. Greene says: "The guard left her" (the Queen) "in this perplexitie, and carried the child to the king, who, quite devoide of pity, commanded that without delay it should be put in the boat, having neither sail nor rudder to guide it, and so to be carried into the midst of the sea, and there left to the wind and wave, as the destinies please to appoint." The child thus "left to the wind and wave" is the Perdita of Shakespeare, who describes the way in which the infant was exposed very differently, and probably for this reason:-that in "The Tempest" he had previously (perhaps not long before) represented Prospero and Miranda turned adrift at sea in the same manner as Greene had stated his heroine to have been disposed of. When, therefore, Shakespeare came to write "The Winter's Tale," instead of following Greene, as he had usually done in other minor circumstances, he varied from the original nar of incident in his two dramas. In representing Bohemia to be a maritime country, Shakespeare adopted the popular notion, as it had been encour aged since 1588 by Greene's "Pandosto." The second piece of evidence on this point has also recently come to light. It is contained in a MS. 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, he states that he saw "The Winter's Tale" at the Globe Theatre: this was the May preceding the representation of it at Court on the 5th November. He gives a brief account of the plot, which ingeniously includes all the main incidents. We have reason to think that "The Winter's Tale" was in its first run on the 15th May, 1611, and that the Globe Theatre had not then been long opened for the season. "The idea of this delightful drama" (says Coleridge in his Lit. Rem.) "is a genuine jealousy of disposition, and it should be immediately followed by the perusal of Othello,' which is the direct contrast of it in every particular. For jealousy is a vice of the mind, a culpable tendency of temper, having certain well-known and well-defined effects and concomitants, all of which are visible in Leontes, and I boldly say, not one of which marks its pres The opinion that the play was then a novelty, is strongly confirmed by the third piece of evidence, which Malone discovered late in life. He found a 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 JOHN. George Buc." Sir George Buc was Master of the THE LIFE AND DEATH OF KING Forman saw it at the Globe. It might have been composed by Shakespeare in the autumn and winter of 1610-11, with a view to its production on the Bank-side, as soon as the usual performances by the King's players commenced there. We have seen that "The Tempest" and "The Winter's Tale" were both acted at Whitehall, from October, 1611, to October, 1612. How much older "The Tempest" might be than "The Winter's Tale," we have no means of determining; but there is a circumstance which shows that the composition of "The Tempest" was anterior to that of "The Winter's Tale ;" and this brings us to speak of the novel upon which the latter is founded. As early as the year 1588, Robert Greene printed a tract called "Pandosto: The Triumph of Time," better known as "The history of Dorastus and Fawnia," the title it bore in some of the later copies. As far as we now know, it was not reprinted until "The Life and Death of King John" was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-two pages; viz. from p. I to p. 22 inclusive, a new pagination begin ning with the "Histories." It occupies the same place and the same space in the re-impressions of 1632, 1664, and 1685.] "KING JOHN," the earliest of Shakespeare's "Histories" in the folio of 1623, (where they are arranged according to the reigns of the different monarchs,) first appeared in that volume, and the Registers of the Stationers' Company have been searched in vain for any entry regarding it: it is not enumerated by Blount and Jaggard on the 8th November, 1623, when they inserted a list of the pieces, "not formerly entered to other men,' about to be included in their folio: hence an inference might be drawn that there had been some previous entry of "King John" "to other men," and, perhaps, even that the play had been already published. It seems indisputable that Shakespeare's "King John" was founded upon an older play, three times printed anterior to the publication of the folio of 1623: "The first and second part of the trouble- | some Reign of John, King of England," came from the press in 1591, 1611, and 1622. Malone, and others who have adverted to this production, have obviously not had the several impressions before them. The earliest copy, that of 1591, has no name on the title-page: that of 1611 has "W. Sh." to indicate the author, and that of 1622, "W. Shakespeare," the surname only at length. Steevens once thought that the ascription of it to Shakespeare by fraudulent booksellers, who wished it to be taken for his popular work, was correct, but he subsequently abandoned this untenable opinion. How long the old "King John" had been in possession of the stage prior to 1591, when it was originally printed, we have no precise information, but Shakespeare found it there, and took the course usual with dramatists of the time, by applying to his own purposes as much of it as he thought would be advantageous. He converted the "two parts" into one drama, and in many of its main features followed the story, not as he knew it in history, but as it was fixed in popular belief. In some particulars he much improved upon the conduct of the incidents: for instance, in the first act of the old “King John," Lady Falconbridge is, needlessly and objectionably, made a spectator of the scene in which the bastardy of her son Philip is discussed before King John and his mother. Another amend ment of the original is the absence of Constance from the stage when the marriage between Lewis and Blanch is debated and determined. A third material variation ought not to be passed over with out remark. Although Shakespeare, like the author or authors of the old "King John," employs the Bastard forcibly to raise money from the monasteries in England, he avoids the scenes of extortion and ribaldry of the elder play, in which the monks and nuns are turned into ridicule, and the indecency and licentiousness of their lives exposed. In King Richard. As it hath been lately acted by the Kinges Maiesties seruants, at the Globe. By William Shakespeare. At London, Printed for Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Foxe. 1615." 4to. 39 leaves. the folio of 1623, "The life and death of King Richard the Second" occupies twenty-three pages, viz., from p. 23 to p. 45, inclusive. The three other folios reprint it in the same form, and in all it is divided into Acts and Scenes.] editions of "King Richard II.," which preceded ABOVE we have given the titles of four quarto the publication of the folio of 1623, and which were all published during the lifetime of Shakespeare: and 1615. they bear date respectively in 1597, 1598, 1608, It will be observed that the title of the edition of 1608 states that it contains " new addi tions of the Parliament Scene, and the deposing of King Richard." The Duke of Devonshire is in possession of an unique copy, dated 1608, the title of which merely follows the wording of the preceding impression of 1598, omitting any notice of them. The name of our great dramatist first appears new additions," though containing the whole of in connection with this historical play in 1598, as if Simmes the printer, and Wise the stationer, when they printed and published their edition of 1597, did not know, or were not authorized to state, that Shakespeare was the writer of it. Precisely the same was the case with "King Richard III.," printed and published by the same parties in the same year. original production of "Richard II.," and then of We will first speak regarding the date of the the period when it is likely that the " tions" were inserted. new addi 1597, in the following manner :It was entered on the Stationers' Register in "29 Aug. 1597. Andrew Wise.] The Tragedye of Richard the Seconde." This memorandum was made anterior, but per Upon the question, when "King John" was writ-haps only shortly anterior, to the actual publication ten by Shakespeare, we have no knowledge beyond the fact that Francis Meres introduces it into his list in 1598. Chalmers would assign the play to 1598, but the chance seems to be, that it was written a short time before it was spoken of by Meres: we should be disposed to assign it to a date between 1596 and 1598, when the old "King John" had gone a little out of recollection, and when Meres would have had time to become acquainted with Shakespeare's drama. KING RICHARD II. ["The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine his Seruants. London Printed by Valen tine Simmes for Androw Wise, and are to be sold at his 1597." 4to. 37 leaves. shop in Paules church yard at the signe of the Angel. "The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath beene publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. By William Shake-speare. London Printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules churchyard at the signe of the Angel. 1598.' 4to. 36 leaves, "The Tragedie of King Richard the Second: with new additions of the Parliament Sceane, and the deposing of King Richard. As it hath been lately acted by the Kinges Maiesties seruantes, at the Globe. By William Shakespeare. At London, Printed by W. W. for Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paule's churchyard, at the signe of the Foxe. 1608." 4to. 39 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the Second: with new additions of the Parliament Sceane, and the deposing of of " Richard II.," and it forms the earliest notice of its existence. Malone supposes that it was written in 1593, but he does not produce a single fact or argument to establish his position. Chalmers contended that a note of time was to be found in the allusions in the first and second Acts to the disturbances in Ireland. It is quite certain that the rebellion in that country was renewed in 1594, and proclaimed in 1595: but it is far from clear that any reference to it was intended by Shakespeare. Where the matter is so extremely doubtful, we shall not attempt to fix on any particular year. Meres mentions 66 Richard the 2" in 1598. Respecting the "new additions" of "the deposing of King Richard" we have some evidence, the existence of which was not known in the time of Malone, who conjectured that this scene had originally formed part of Shakespeare's play, and the fear of offending Elizabeth," and not published, was "suppressed in the printed copy of 1597, from with the rest, until 1608. Such may have been the case, but we now know that there were two separ ate plays upon the events of the reign of Richard II., and the deposition seems to have formed a por tion of both. For the incidents of this "most admirable of all Shakespeare's purely historical plays," as Coleridge calls it, our great poet appears to have gone no farther than Holinshed, who was himself indebted to Hall and Fabian. However, Shakespeare has nowhere felt himself bound to adhere to chronology when it better answered his purpose to desert it. Thus, the Prince of Wales, afterwards Henry V., is spoken of in Act v., sc. 3, as frequenting taverns and stews, when he was in fact only twelve years old. This is exactly one of those anachronisms which, in the words of Schlegel, Shakespeare committed "purposely and most deliberately.” His design, of course, was in this instance to link together" Richard II." and the first part of "Henry IV." Of the four quarto editions of “Richard II." the most valuable, for its readings and general accuracy beyond all dispute, is the impression of 1597. The other three quartos were, more or less, printed from it, and the folio of 1623 seems to have taken the latest, that of 1615, as the foundation of its text; but, from a few words found only in the folio, it may seem that the player-editors referred also to some extrinsic authority. It is quite certain, however, that the folio copied obvious and indisputable blunders from the quarto of 1615. FIRST PART OF KING HENRY IV. ["The History of Henrie the Fovrth: With the battell at Shrewsburie, betweene the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstalffe. At London, printed by P. S. for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Churchyard, at the signe of the Angell. 1598." 4to. 40 leaves. "The History of Henry the Fovrth; With the battell at 4to. 40 leaves. Shrewseburie, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceites of Sir lohn Falstalffe. Newly corrected by W. Shakespeare. London, Printed for Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Churchyard, neere unto S. Augustines gate, at the signe of the Foxe. 1608." 4to. 40 leaves. The 4to. edition of 1613 also consists of 40 leaves: and the only differences between its title-page and that of 1608 are W." | putable evidence of Thomas Nash, in his notorious work, "Pierce Penniless, his Supplication," which went through three editions in the same year: we quote from the first, where he says, "What a glori ous thing it is to have Henry the Fifth represented on the Stage, leading the French King prisoner, and forcing him and the Dolphin to sweare fealtie." We know also that a drama, called “Harry the V.,” was performed by Henslowe's Company on the 28th November. 1595, and it appears likely that it was a revival of "The Famous Victories," with some important additions, which gave it the attraction of a new play; for the receipts (as we find by Henslowe's Diary) were of such an amount as was generally only produced by a first representation. The reproduction of "The Famous Victories" by a rival company, possibly led Shakespeare to consider in what way, and with what improvements, he could avail himself of some of the same incidents for the theatre to which he belonged. 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 summarily dismissed in one old play, are extended by our great dramatist over three-the two parts of "Henry IV." and "Henry V." It is impossible to institute any parallel between "The Famous Victories" and Shakespeare's dramas; for, besides that the former has reached us evidently in an imperfect shape, the immeasurable superiority of the latter is such, as to render any attempt to trace resemblance rather a matter of contrast than comparison. "On Sir John Oldcastle is one of the persons in "The Famous Victories;" and no doubt can be enter tained that the character of Sir John Falstaff, in the first part of Shakespeare's "Henry IV.," was origi nally called Sir John Oldcastle. If any hesitation could formerly have been felt upon this point, it must have been recently entirely removed by Mr. Halliwell's very curious and interesting tract, the character of Sir John Falstaff, as originally exhibited by Shakespeare," 12mo, 1841. How the identity of Oldcastle and Falstaff could ever have been questioned after the discovery of the following passage in a play by Nathaniel Field, called, "Amends for Ladies," 1618, it is difficult to comprehend; the lines seem to us decisive :— "Did you never see The play where the fat knight, hight Oldcastle, This can allude to nothing but to Falstaff's speech the author had altered it to that of Falstaff." the date, and the statement that it was "Printed by W. In the folio of 1623, "The First Part of Henry the Fourth, with the Life and Death of Henry Sirnamed Hot-spvrre," occupies twenty-six pages, viz., from p. 46 to p. 73 inclusive. In the later folios it is reprinted in the same form.] AT the time when Shakespeare selected the portion of history included in the following play, as a fit subject for dramatic representation, the stage was in possession of an old play, entitled, "The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth," of which three early impressions, one printed in 1598, and two others without date, have come down to us: a copy of one edition without date is in the Collection of the Duke of Devonshire; and, judging from the type and other circumstances, we may conclude that it was anterior to the impression of 1598, and that it made its appearance shortly after 1594, on the 14th of May of which year it was entered on the Stationers' Registers. The fact of its being in prose, may lead to the With regard to the text of this play, it is unquesconjecture 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 Although we are without any contemporaneous notices of the performance of Shakespeare's "Henry IV." Part i., there cannot be a doubt that it was extraordinarily popular. It went through five distinct impressions in 4to, in 1598, 1599, 1604, 1608, and 1613, before it was printed in the first folio. Meres introduces "Henry the IVth" into his list in 1598, and we need feel little doubt that he alluded to Part i., because, on a preceding page, he makes a quotation from one of Falstaff's speeches,-" there is nothing but roguery in villainous man,"-though without acknowledging the source from which it was taken. impression nearest to their own day, that of 1613, adopting many of its defects, and, as far as we can judge, resorting to no MS. authority, nor to the previous quartos of 1598, 1599, 1604, and 1608. SECOND PART OF KING HENRY IV. [The Second part of Henrie the fourth, continuing to his death, and coronation of Henrie the fift. With the humours of Sir John Falstaffe, and swaggering Pistoll. As it hath been sundrie times publikely acted by the right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. London Printed by V. S. for Andrew Wise, and William Aspley. 1600." 4to. 43 leaves. Other copies of the same edition, in quarto, not containing Sign. E 5 and E 6, have only 41 leaves. In the folio, 1623, "The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, containing his Death: and the Coronation of King Henry the Fift," occupies twenty-nine pages in the division of "Histories," viz, from p. 74 to p. 102 inclusive, the last two not being numbered. Pages 89 and 90, by an error of the press, are numbered 91 and 92. In the reprint of the folio, 1632, this mistake is repeated. In the two later folios the pagination continued from the beginning to the end of the volume.] 46 We may state with more certainty than usual, that Henry IV." Part ii. was written before the 25th February, 1598. Act ii. sc. 2, of the "history" before us contains a piece of evidence that Falstaff was still called Oldcastle when it was written; viz. that the prefix of Old. is retained in the quarto, 1600, before a speech which belongs to Falstaff, and which is assigned to him in the folio of 1623. Now, we know from the entry itself that the name of Oldcastle was changed to that of Falstaff before "Henry IV." Part i. was entered in the books of the Stationers' Company, on the 25th February, 1597-8. It requires no proof that "Henry IV." Part ii. was produced after "Richard II." because that play is quoted in it. The memorandum in the Stationers' Registers, prior to the publication of the following play, bears date on 23d Aug. 1600, and it was made by Andrew Wise and William Aspley, who brought out "The Seconde Parte of the History of Kinge Henry the iiiit," 4to, in that year. There was only one edition of "Henry IV." Part ii. in 1600, but some copies vary importantly, The play was evidently produced from the press in haste; and besides other large omissions, a whole scene, forming the commencement of Act iii. was left out. Most of the copies are without these pages, but they are found in those of the Duke of Devonshire and Malone. The stationer must have discovered the error after the publication, and sheet E was accordingly reprinted, in order to supply the defect. honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Millington, and John Busby. And are to be sold at his house in Carter Lane, next the Powle head. 1600, 4to, 27 leaves. "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 seruants. 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 Parrets, neare the Exchange. 1602." 4to. 26 leaves, "The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Together with ancient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlene his Seruants. Printed for T. P. 1608." 4to. 27 leaves. "The Life of Henry the Fift, in the folio of 1623, occupies twenty-seven pages, viz. from p. 69 to p. 95 inclusive. The pagination from "Henry IV." Part ii. to "Henry V." is not continued, but a new series begins with "Henry V." on p. 69, and is regularly followed to the end of the "Histories." The folio, 1632, adopts this error, but it is avoided in the two later folio impressions.] Ir is a circumstance deserving remark, that not one of the title-pages of the three quarto editions of "Henry V." attributes the authorship of the play to Shakespeare. The fact, no doubt, is, that there never was an authorized edition of "Henry V." until it appeared in the folio of 1623, and that the quarto without the consent of the author, or of the comimpressions were surreptitious, and were published pany to which he was attached. The drama must played over and over again at the theatre, and yet have enjoyed great popularity; it must have been the public interest, as far as perusal is concerned, would seem to have been satisfied with a brief, rude, and mutilated representation of the performance. dence of fraud: the earliest of them was not pubThe quartos bear strong external and internal evilished by a bookseller or booksellers by whom Shakespeare's genuine dramas were issued; and the second and third came from the hands of Thomas Pavier, who was instrumental in giving to the world some pieces, with the composition of which Shakespeare had no concern, though ascribed to him on the edition was made up, not from any authentic the title-page. The internal evidence shows that manuscript, nor even from any combination of the separate parts delivered out to the actors by the Copyist of the theatre, but from what could be taken the performance was taking place. A play called down in short-hand, or could be remembered, while 66 January, 1605, as we learn from "The Extracts Henry V." was represented at Court on the 7th P. Cunningham, and printed by the Shakespeare from the Accounts of the Revels," edited by Mr. Society; and these important additions may have been inserted for that occasion. The entry runs, literatim, as follows: "On the 7 of January was played the play of Henry the fift." The folio 1623 was taken from a complete copy of the edition of 1600; and, moreover, the actor-In the margin we are informed that it was acted by itors, probably from a play-house manuscript in their hands, furnished many other lines wanting in the quarto. On the other hand, the quarto, 1600, contains several passages not found in the folio, 1623. Our text includes both, in order that no syllable which came from the pen of Shakespeare may be lost. KING HENRY V. The Cronicle History of Henry the fift, With his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll. As it hath beue sundry times playd by the Right his Majesty's players, but the name of the author is not in this instance given, although "Shaxberd" is placed opposite the title of "Measure for Measure," stated to have been exhibited on a preceding night. The fact that the actors belonged to Shakespeare's company renders it most probable that his play was 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 subsequently written and introduced: we are perfectly convinced that the three quarto editions of 1600, 1602, and 1608, do not at all contain the play as it was acted in the first instance; but were hastily made |