Dating Shakespeare's Plays: Introduction

Home , Gary Taylor (scholar), Samuel Schoenbaum

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Introduction

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays

Introduction Kevin Gilvary

When did Shakespeare write his plays? a precise date on any particular play is lacking. What follows is a methodical assessment of the here is, apparently, a scholarly consensus range of possible dates for each of the thirty-six about the order in which Shakespeare plays in the First Folio and for four other plays composed his plays and the dates when which have been attributed to Shakespeare. Tthey were written. This ‘scholarly consensus’ or ‘accepted orthodoxy’ can be found in almost What do we mean by the every edition of the Complete Works and in ‘date’ of a play? almost every biography. Yet, close comparison of these dates shows The ‘date’ of a play can refer to three possible some surprising discrepancies: King John has events: when it was composed, when it was first been placed by different scholars in every year performed or when it was first published. It is of the decade up to 1598; Love’s Labour’s Lost is important to make careful distinction within sometimes taken to be the playwright’s earliest the evidence proposed as to which type of date attempt at comedy, and sometimes part of his is indicated. Historically, the tendency among mature period, while Hamlet can be dated to scholars has been to assume that the playwright 1602 only by ignoring allusions which could date produced one definitive or archetypal version of it as early as 1589. each play which was then handed over to the When preparing to date the plays, every acting companies and eventually found its way commentator announces that the primary to publication, either in a quarto or later in the evidence is very fragmentary and that any date collection of works known as the First Folio. is conjectural and reliant on speculation. Such More recently, there has been acceptance that the announcements, however, are soon forgotten playwright may have produced different versions as almost every scholar in turn puts forward a of a play, e.g. King Lear, which would all therefore precise date for a play – not so much because there have authorial status.1 The most recent editors of is evidence to support it, merely because there is Hamlet for the Arden series accept that the three no evidence to contradict the date proposed. versions of this play might also have all originated The Dating of Shakespeare’s Plays is quite from the playwright himself. So, by the ‘date’ different from previous efforts in this field: in this of a play we could be referring to nine different work, the various contributors have challenged possibilities.2 the scholarly consensus by simply identifying the range of dates for each play rather than arguing for a particular date. In considering Oxfordian Date of Composition dates, the intention is not to prove that the Earl of This would be the most important date for many Oxford may or may not have written the works: scholars, but there is no evi-dence for the date of the purpose is to consider whether alternative, composition of any play by Shakespeare. Any such often earlier, dates for the plays are tenable. date offered rests on inferences and arguments that The findings are necessarily inconclusive: as are often dependent on belief and speculation. scholar after scholar has said, the evidence to fix

Catalogue page from the First Folio, 1623. This catalogue gives no indication of date or chronology, unlike the folio of Jonson’s Works, 1616.

Date of First Performance several plays listed by Meres in 1598 (e.g. The Two Gentlemen of Verona) were not published for The date of first performance would also be very another 25 years.4 important for scholars but there is no evidence to date any première of any play by Shakespeare. The theatrical records are very fragmentary and Previous Attempts to Date only two performances might have been recorded Shakespeare’s Plays as premières: Henslowe’s Diary applies the prefix There have been many attempts to establish a “ne” to “harey the vi” on 3 March 1592 (but it chronology of the plays of Shakespeare and four is not clear which part) and to Titus Andronicus are outlined here as having great influence.5 on 23 January 1594. The note “ne” might mean ‘newly composed’, but could also mean ‘newly acquired’ or even ‘newly revised’.3 Edmond Malone (1778) Some plays are not mentioned in performance The earliest attempt to sequence and date the plays (e.g. Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus); of Shakespeare occurred soon after David Garrick for those plays which are mentioned, it is quite had organised the Stratford Jubilee in 1769. In common for orthodox scholars to make two 1778, Edmond Malone (1741–1812) published assumptions: his essay, An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in (a) that the earliest mentioned performance which the Plays of Shakespeare Were Written. It is the first staging, e.g. Cymbeline is first was a noble undertaking and Malone engaged mentioned by Forman in 1611, who many great minds, including Thomas Tyrwhitt is taken to have seen one of its first (1730–1786) and George Steevens (1736–1800), performances; in his search for contemporary evidence. Much (b) that the first performance must have of the material known today (e.g. The Stationers’ occurred soon after composition. Register, title pages to quartos, and the work of Meres) became available to Malone during the Various questions arise: firstly, did Forman witness course of his investigations but he concluded his the first ever performance of Cymbeline or of The essay with the insight that, to some, his project Winter’s Tale? Secondly, were these plays newly would appear “a tedious and barren speculation”. composed? It is usual to assume the answer is Malone proposed various dates, most of which ‘yes’ to both these questions but other possibilities are accepted today; a few have been discarded but exist. Forman himself notes a performance of remain tenable. He identifies The Winter’s Tale Macbeth (which he dates 1610 but is usually taken with the entry in the Stationers’ Register for A to refer to 1611). This is the earliest reference to Winter night’s Pastime in 1594. He dates Hamlet the Scottish play, yet no editor proposes that to 1596 on the basis of Harvey’s marginalia in Macbeth was newly composed when Forman saw a copy of Speght’s Chaucer. (As this edition is it; most editors opt for a date in 1606 but some now dated to 1598, Harvey’s written comments have accepted that it could have been earlier (or should be placed between 1598 and 1601). later). Malone subsequently changed his mind, placing Hamlet later in the sequence, and suggesting that Date of First Publication references in the works of Nashe and others were to a lost play by another playwright. He dated The date of first publication is normally Cymbeline to 1604 and placed Henry VIII in unproblematic and often rests on a combination 1601 despite knowledge of Henry Wooton’s letter of an entry in the Stationers’ Register with the (1613), in which it is written: “The King’s players bibliographic information on the title page. had a new play, called All is True, representing However, it is quite common for scholars some principal pieces of the reign of Henry VIII”. to assume that publication in quarto followed Unlike later commentators, Malone is aware that shortly after composition, e.g. that Richard II “new” might have been intended in different ways: was composed shortly before its registration in as ‘newly composed’, as ‘new to the Company’ or 1597. This assumption is again open to doubt: perhaps as ‘new to the general public’: previously

© De Vere Society 3 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Introduction the play might have been performed at court or in comparative infrequency of the feminine ending a private house. (iv) comparative infrequency of the weak ending Schoenbaum (169) was very dismissive of (v) comparative infrequency of the unstopped line Malone’s efforts: (vi) regular internal structure of the line. To these he added frequency of classical allusions, puns, When he can find no evidence, [Malone] conceits, wit and imagery (itemised to the point of throws up his hands in despair and assigns exhaustion), treatment of clowns, the presence of a play to a year simply because that year termagants or shrewish women, difference in the would otherwise be blank and Shakespeare must have been continuously employed. use of soliloquies and symmetry in the grouping Such is the case with Coriolanus (1609) and of persons. Much of this followed the work of F. Timon of Athens (1610) for which objective G. Fleay and F. J. Furnivall. evidence is depressingly scant. Malone’s date Dowden’s four phases were: for Coriolanus is, however, a lucky guess. (a) in the workshop. The works of Shakespeare’s Schoenbaum is inconsistent. If the objective youth – experiments in various directions evidence for dating Coriolanus is “depressingly – are all marked by the presence of vivacity, scant” (there is no mention of Coriolanus before cleverness, delight in beauty, and a quick 1623), Schoenbaum cannot be sure that a date c. enjoyment of existence. Shakespeare was 1609 is correct. an apprentice reworking other people’s In the nineteenth century there were many plays. attempts to sequence and date the plays, which (b) in the world. But now Shakespeare’s wavered between the confident and the cautious: imagination began to lay hold of real life; John Payne Collier (History of English Dramatic he came to understand the world and Poetry, 1831) included a reference to the newly the men in it; his plays began to deal in discovered diary of John Manningham; he also an original and powerful way with the added further “evidence” which turned out to be matter of history. forgeries of his own (see the note in Chapter 34, (c) out of the depths. The poet now ceased to Othello). care for the tales of mirth and love; for the stir and movement of history, for the Edward Dowden (1874) pomp of war; he needed to sound, with his imagination, the depths of the human In 1863, a versatile scholar called John Kells heart; to inquire into the darkest and Ingram contributed a talk on Shakespeare to saddest parts of human life; to study the a series of lectures in Dublin. Ingram outlined great mystery of evil. the need to establish the chronological order of (d) on the heights. Whatever the trials and Shakespeare’s works so as to illustrate Shakespeare’s sorrows and errors might have been, he personality and the development of his art. He had come forth from them wise, large- was particularly enthusiastic about using metrical hearted, calm-souled.7 features, such as lines with feminine endings, to date the plays.6 Ingram’s challenge was taken By the time of the third edition (c. 1881), up by his pupil Edward Dowden who succeeded Dowden had expanded his groups into twelve; he Ingram as Professor of Oratory and English states: “I claim no certainty for the order of the Literature at Trinity College (Dublin University). plays within the groups; but I offer the arrangement It was Dowden who confidently delineated of [twelve] groups with great confidence as to the playwright’s development of “intellect its correctness” (Preface, ix). Dowden’s groups and character from youth to full maturity” in proved very influential on subsequent scholars, Shakespere: A Critical Study of his Mind and Art especially on E. K. Chambers. However, Dowden (1874). Dowden extended Ingram’s suggestion was perhaps revealing more about himself than of three developmental periods into four distinct about the dramatist. Schoenbaum (490–500) phases and used the statistical approach to is somewhat dismissive of Dowden for various establishing a chronology: (i) frequency of rhyme claims, e.g. that As You Like It was written when (ii) occurrence of rhymed doggerel verse (iii) Shakespeare withdrew to the Warwickshire

© De Vere Society 4 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Introduction countryside for relaxation, or that the poet had Dowden’s four phases but does not offer precise suffered an internal upheaval when composing dates within them. Othello and Lear. Schoenbaum further notes that the [so-called] final plays show Shakespeare not so E. K. Chambers (1930) much “on the heights” as “back in the academy”. Gary Taylor notes that Dowden’s evolutionary In 1930, Sir Edmund Chambers published his view of literature corresponds to Darwin’s vision two- volume William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts of life but that “by the middle of the twentieth and Problems – the “most admired and influential century Shakespeare’s texts had been relieved of work of its kind in the first half of the twentieth any such dependence [as envisaged in phase (a) century” according to Taylor (1990: 240). It has in the workshop] on earlier hands” (Reinventing remained expressive of the orthodox position Shakespeare, 1990: 282). in all aspects of dating the plays and includes Not all Victorian commentators were as bibliographic detail from the Stationers’ Register confident as Dowden. James Halliwell-Phillipps and title pages. Chambers broke down larger (Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 1887, two subjects into discrete topics, before reviewing and volumes amounting to 858 pages) recorded a vast evaluating previous attempts to date the plays. range of contemporary references but remained In Chapter VIII, he deals with ‘The Problem of profoundly aware of the limitations of the Chronology’ (WS, I, 243–275), stating: evidence: We can only rely upon the dates at which ‘sources’ became available, in most cases too remote to be helpful, and upon allusions in [The would-be biographer of Shakespeare] the plays themselves to datable historical is baffled in every quarter by the want of events. These require handling with great graphical documents, and little more can care. (I, 245) be accomplished beyond a very imperfect He was as aware of the limitations of the evidence sketch or outline of the material features of as Halliwell-Phillips had been and reacted against the poet’s career (I, xvii). the narrative biographies of Shakespeare: Nevertheless, Frederick Fleay (A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, A full literary and psychological analysis 1886) was more confident in assigning dates to can only follow and not precede the establishment of a chronology. And in the plays. Fleay accumulated statistical evidence8 meantime we are bound to a circular process. to support his claims. Sir Sidney Lee, who had A preliminary dating sets up impressions of been working on the monumental Dictionary of temper and style, and the definition of these National Biography, produced his Life of William helps to elaborate the dating. (I, 252) Shakespeare in 1898, in which he freely conflated factual detail with his own speculation. He refuses Nevertheless, Chambers adopts the “admirable to consider the identity of “The Dark Lady” of treatment of Professor Dowden” and accepts the the sonnets (“speculation is useless”) but whole- four stages of Shakespeare’s development. Since heartedly embraces the earl of Southampton as the Chambers expresses his views in a personal tone, “young man”. Despite the fact that Shakespeare modern commentators have generally been able does not mention Southampton after 1594, Lee to see which of his statements are opinions, to boldly asserts that he “was mindful to the last of be confirmed or challenged as the case may be. the encouragement that the young peer offered Shortly after this passage, he opines: “We can be him while he was still on the threshold of the pretty sure that the references to Scottish kings temple of fame” (150). of England in Macbeth are Jacobean.” While a However, Dowden’s division of the plays into number of editors now disagree with this, the four phases and assignment of dates within these comment is clearly marked as opinion. Chambers phases has remained the definitive chronology, e.g. continues: in E. Cobham Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1898 and later reprints). Peter Alexander’s Obviously, the grouping of the plays is Shakespeare’s Life and Art (1938) reproduces only the first stage of the chronological problem. There remain the more difficult

tasks of determining an order of succession Wells and Taylor (1987) within the groups and between members of overlapping groups. . . . Here it is legitimate The other major review in the twentieth century of to make some cautious use of minor topical the canon and chronology of Shakespeare’s plays allusions. (I, 253) was conducted by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (with John Jowett and William Montgomery) In Chapter IX, Chambers then takes each play in A Textual Companion (1987: 69–144). Like in turn and, based on his idea of the order in Chambers, they offer a systematic review of the which they were written, assigns a date (usually dates of the plays in the order in which (according a winter season) for the composition. Some dates to their findings) they were written. In general, are advanced with extreme caution; nevertheless their findings coincide exactly with Dowden generally Chambers’s chronology has become and Chambers for 24 plays, averaging just under established as the orthodox view. two years’ difference in the remaining plays (see Some of Chambers’s assumptions are not Table 2, Comparative Dates). Wells and Taylor fully shared today. He asserts that Shakespeare make use of the same bibliographic data and produced a single or archetypal version of each contemporary allusions but add their own new play, e.g. of Hamlet, “Q2 substantially represents categories of stylistic development, especially with the original text of the play, as written once and regard to ‘colloquialisms’. In general they appear for all by Shakespeare”, I, 412, (emphasis added). more confident than Chambers, but there are He ignores the possibility that the author might some admissions of gaps in the record. They differ have been responsible for the different versions. mostly from Chambers in dating Two Gentlemen He talks of a “lyrical period” (to include Richard four years earlier, but accept that this play could II and A Midsummer Night’s Dream) when it is be dated anywhere between 1589 and 1598. They not established that such plays must have been reject Honigmann’s earlier date (c. 1587) for this composed in the same period of time. He assumes Italian comedy, because it would leave a gap later a “tragic period”, covering the great tragedies in the chronology.10 Overall, Wells & Taylor (Hamlet, Othello, Lear and Macbeth), to which he provide a coherent approach to the dates of the adds: “Timon clearly belongs to the tragic period” plays, which can be described as orthodox. (I, 483). By his reckoning, there appears a previous “tragic period” in the mid 1590s, including British Drama 1533–1642: Richard II and Romeo and Juliet. A Catalogue (2011– ) He seems to ignore the possibility that Timon might have belonged to this earlier tragic period. Most recently, Martin Wiggins of the Shakespeare Chambers assigns dates according to gaps in the Institute in Stratford, with the help of Catherine author’s life: he rejects the proposed date of 1605 Richardson, has been compiling a monumental for Timon because Shakespeare would have been catalogue in ten volumes of the plays in the early too busy writing other plays in that year, but places modern period. He reports the known data about it two years later in 1607–8 (with Coriolanus) to fill each play regarding its authorship, publication a gap. According to this view, the playwright only history, performance history, plot, roles, sources worked on one play at a time. Finally, he follows and formal characteristics, such as meter and Fleay’s statistical analysis of metre for dating the scene divisions. The main focus of organisation plays (although he uses his own figures). These is chronological, which is also its main weakness. metrical tests have generally been superseded by Wiggins is aware of the limitations: stylistic tests on colloquialisms. The links between style and chronology are considered in the third Dramatic chronology is an art of polar section of this Introduction. Overall, Chambers extremes. In some cases we know the very is an excellent starting point for examining the day on which the author finished writing possible dates for each play and his chronology is a play, or when Philip Henslowe paid referred to in this study as ‘orthodox dating’.9 him (albeit not necessarily promptly) the final instalment of his fee, or when the Master of the Revels licensed the text for performance; we also often know the date of

the first performance, and occasionally even Types of Evidence – External the hour. But the dates of other plays are approximations, the product of judgements External evidence consists of contemporary which seek to take account of whatever references outside the plays them-selves and may evidence is available and sometimes to be considered in eight ways: reconcile its contradictory indications; the Catalogue uses the phrase “best guess” (a) Dated manuscripts to emphasize the porous nature of such Dated manuscripts would provide proof of the assessments. (Catalogue I, xxxix–xi). date of composition. A few manuscripts survive from other playwrights, e.g. Jonson’s The Masque Nevertheless, Wiggins has to assign every play to of Queenes and Thomas Middleton’s A Game at a particular year and in general, he follows the Chess. However, there is no manuscript, dated or orthodox dating and chronology proposed by undated, of any Shakespeare play. The one portion Chambers, and followed by Wells & Taylor. of a manuscript attributed to Shakespeare’s hand Wiggins makes assertions based on biographical belongs to the play, Sir Thomas More.This play is assumptions. He states that “In 1590, Shakespeare not included in the First Folio and not attributed was primarily an actor, probably not yet of any to Shakespeare elsewhere. Greg’s identification seniority in his company. He would have known of “Shakespeare’s hand” in the portion his own company’s repertory well, but his ability depends partly on similarity of handwriting to see other companies’ plays would have been to Shakespeare’s signature (the six examples of limited by the fact that he would usually have which all post-date 1612), partly on similarity of been working at the time they were performed” content with crowd scenes in Julius Caesar and in (III:252). He believes that some plays were Coriolanus, and partly on the perceived quality of printed “from an authorial manuscript” or “from the passage. The manuscript ofSir Thomas Moreis authorial foul papers” even though such ideas no not dated, but from external references is thought longer enjoy wide support. to have been composed between 1579 and 1607, Wiggins believes that the “Bad Quartos” were with preferences for 1592–5 or for 1603–4.11 shortened or garbled versions of Shakespeare’s texts, thus dismissing the possibility that (b) Correspondence concerning literary Shakespeare might have revised his own shorter matters texts into the longer versions in the Folio. He There are no letters either to Shakespeare or by claims that Shakespeare’s earliest plays were the him about any of his plays or any literary matter. original texts of 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, dated Such correspondence, however, does exist for to 1591, and that he was at that time a member of contemporary playwrights. Jonson wrote to the Pembroke’s Men. Earl of Salisbury from prison saying the cause of By 1592, Wiggins believes he must have his incarceration was “a play”.12 Thomas Nashe written at least The Taming of the Shrew and Titus wrote a letter in August / September 1596 to Andronicus (III: 119). As thr 1594 Quarto of Titus William Cotton, saying that he had refused to Andronicus describes it as having been “Plaide by accept invitations to the country but preferred the Right Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle to stay in town “had I wist hopes & an after of Pembroke, and Earle of Sussex their Servants,” harvest I expected by writing for the stage and Wiggins argues that “Shakespeare originally for the press”. He ends with a request for financial wrote the play for Pembroke’s Men in 1591 or assistance.13 Similar letters exist, e.g. by John Lyly 1592” but “transferred his services to Derby’s to Robert Cecil (1574), by Gabriel Harvey to Men after the collapse of Pembroke’s Men in the Lord Burghley (in 1585) and by Philip Massinger, autumn of 1593.” He repeats this suggestion in Nathan Field and Richard Daborne to Henslowe dating Richard III, and Edward III to 1593 (III: (c. 1613, begging for a five pound advance).14 No 219; 228). Overall, the Catalogue collects a wealth such letter exists for Shakespeare. of material and should be consulted by anyone interested in trying to date any play from the (c) Revels Accounts period. The Revels Accounts list plays performed at court but do not indicate when they were written.

The winter season at court 1604–5 included various accounts of the Globe’s burning down performances of at least six plays by Shakespeare: during a performance of Henry VIII in 1613. It The Moor of Venis, Mery Wives of Windsor, Mesur is usual to assume that these plays were only just for Mesur, the plaie of Errors, Loues labours Lost written, but such allusions only indicate that a and Henry the fift. Clearly, Shakespeare cannot play was in existence, not when it was composed. have just finished writing all six plays at the same Some allusions are to plays on stage. Thomas time. In fact, we know that some plays had been Nashe, in his pamphlet Pierce Penniless his completed earlier, since three are mentioned by Supplication to the Divell (second impression, SR Meres in 1598 and two more had been published 8 August 1592), states: before the 1604/5 season (Henry V in 1600; Merry How it would have joyed brave Talbot (the Wives in 1602). Only Measure for Measure had not terror of the French) to thinke that after he been mentioned previously, but this is no evidence had lyne two hundred years in his Tombe, for its date of composition. he should triumph againe on the Stage, and have his bones embalmed with the tears of (d) Record of payment for plays ten thousand spectators at least (at several There are no records of payments for the script times) . . . of any Shakespearean play. Henslowe includes records of payments to other playwrights, but Talbot fights and dies heroically in 1 Henry VI, none to Shakespeare. The usual price for a play- but is not known to feature in any other play. script was six pounds. Some payments were made This indicates that the play was well known by in advance or in instalments (possibly as advances). 1592. Other allusions are usually to plays already John Day received six pounds (in instalments) for in print and attributed to Shakespeare: in 1599, Bristow Tragedy in May 1602. Later that year, on John Weever published a sonnet to Shakespeare 17 November, Henslowe paid six pounds to Day, and mentioned Romeo and Richard, both of whom Hathaway and Smith for Merry as may be.15 were title characters of published plays. Again, Weever’s allusions indicate that the works were (e) Allusions to Shakespeare writing his popular, not when they were written. plays There are no allusions to Shakespeare that can (f) Francis Meres, 1598 indicate when he composed any play.16 On 7 September 1598, Francis Meres registered Since there is no reference to Shakespeare his Palladis Tamia: Wit’s Treasury – a ‘bluffer’s in Webbe’s Discourse of English Poetry (1586), guide’ to English artists and writers. In this, he Puttenham’s Art of English Poesy (1589) or mentioned Shakespeare as a playwright, listing Harington’s Apology for Poetry (1591), it is twelve plays, consisting of six comedies balanced assumed that he did not begin his career until c. by six tragedies: 1590. However, playwrights were not well known and most plays were published anonymously. The As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the Spanish Tragedy (c. 1589) was only attributed to best for Comedy and Tragedy among the 17 Latins, so Shakespeare among the English Kid by Thomas Heywood in 1612. Similarly, is the most excellent in both kinds for the Tamberlaine was not attributed to Marlowe stage; for Comedy, witness his Gentlemen until 1671.18 David Ellis (That Man Shakespeare: of Verona, his Errors, his Love Labours Lost, 2005: 273–8) has attempted to demonstrate that his Love Labours Won, his Midsummer’s biographers should not read too much into the Night Dream, & his Merchant of Venice; for ‘argument from absence’. Tragedy, his Richard the 2, Richard the 3, There are various diarists whose records of Henry the 4, King John, Titus Andronicus, plays in performance are often taken to indicate and his Romeo and Juliet. a date for composition: Thomas Platter and John This list indicates plays that were in existence by Manningham each describe one performance: 1598, but gives no further indication of the date Platter saw Julius Caesar in June 1599; Manningham of composition. Of these plays, Love’s Labour’s enjoyed Twelfth Night on 2 February 1602. Simon Won, has not been identified; there have been Forman describes performances of Macbeth, The suggestions that it is the name of a lost play or Winter’s Tale and Cymbeline in 1611. There are that it is an alternative name for a play otherwise

© De Vere Society 8 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Introduction known. Two of the comedies (Two Gentlemen of other men”. Verona and Comedy of Errors) were not published Some scholars have assumed that a play was until 1623. One other title, King John, may refer usually printed soon after registration, e.g. 1 to a play published anonymously in two parts as Henry IV (registered and published in 1598, dated The Troublesome Reign of King Johnin 1591 but by Chambers to 1597–8) or Henry V (registered somewhat different from The Life and Death of and published in 1600, dated by Chambers to King John in F1. 1598–9). There could, however, have been a The list is not exclusive. At least three plays are delay intervening. In 1598, Meres mentions three known to have pre-dated Meres without gaining comedies which did not find their way into the SR a mention. The three parts of Henry VI are not until later: Love’s Labour’s Lost was only listed in mentioned, but Parts 2 and 3 had been published 1607 while The Two Gentlemen of Veronaand The and Part 1 had been staged by 1592. Other plays Comedy of Errors were not listed until 1623. As You might also pre-date Meres: it is usually argued Like It is mentioned in a kind of memorandum that Merry Wives dates to 1597. There is some dated 4 August (probably 1600) but the play was dispute as to whether the anonymous play, The not properly registered or published until 1623. Taming of A Shrew (published in 1594), was Similarly, Troilus and Cressida was registered Shakespeare’s early version of The Shrewwhich in 1603 but not published until 1608. Antony appears in F1. Finally, there are three or four and Cleopatra was registered in 1608 but not allusions to a play about Hamlet which pre-date published until 1623. Thus an entry in the SR is Meres: the usual interpretation is that these are no indication as to the date of composition. references to another play by another author. But omission from Meres does not prove that a play (h) Title-Pages had not been written. For further consideration of Nineteen of Shakespeare’s plays were published in the significance of Meres, see the next section of quarto up to 1622, with some bibliographic details. the Introduction. A title page indicates that a play was in existence, but not when the play was written. Details can (g) Stationers’ Register (SR) vary; some surviving copies of the second quarto The Worshipful Company of Stationers was of Hamlet (Q2) indicate the date 1604 and granted a royal charter in 1557 giving the others 1605. The title page to Q2 also carries monopoly of all printing licences, outside the the declaration: “Newly imprinted and enlarged universities of Oxford and Cambridge, to the to almost as much againe as it was, according to Stationers’ Company. The Company had the right the true and perfect Coppie.” In the case of Q2, to search for and to seize all publications which the declaration appears to be true as it is such a had not been authorised. Their record, known different text from Q1. But, the third quarto as the Stationers’ Register (SR), lists when a play of the play (1611) bears the same phrases, even was registered for publication, thus indicating though the text of Q3 is almost exactly the same that a play was in existence but not necessarily as Q2, and they can only refer to differences from demonstrating when it had been composed. The Q1. The publication dates are not entirely valid SR was used to establish who owned the licence either: in 1619, Thomas Pavier, in collaboration or copyright.19 with William Jaggard, published ten plays “by The Stationers’ Register mentions fourteen Shakespeare” (including Sir John Oldcastle and Shakespeare plays up to the death of Elizabeth in A Yorkshire Tragedy). Five bore false dates: The 1603. Four more plays were registered in 1607–8, Merchant of Venice (1600), A Midsummer Night’s including Romeo and Juliet and Love’s Labour’s Dream (1600), Henry V (1608), King Lear (1608) Lost (which had already been published in the and Sir John Oldcastle (1600).20 late 1590s), Antony and Cleopatra (which was not published until 1623) and Pericles which was published in 1609 but omitted from F1. Othello was listed in October 1621 and published in 1622. Finally, eighteen plays were registered on 8 November 1623 as “not having been entred to

Types of Evidence – Internal Hotspur as of a similar age, whereas Hotspur was actually older than Hal’s father, Bolingbroke. Internal evidence comes from within the plays Similar doubts about the direction of influence themselves and may be considered in three further exist concerning Daniel’s Cleopatra and ways: Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. It is possible (i) Sources that Shakespeare’s was the earlier work and the A source is a text which has had a major influence direction of influence was reversed, as Joseph upon a play, usually concerning plot, characters Conrad once suggested.24 and setting. Gilbert Highet points out that many (k) Allusions to contemporary events and of Shakespeare’s sources came from the classics, people e.g. Plautus, Seneca and Plutarch, and asserts that There is, apparently, only one allusion to a Shakespeare felt inspired to emulate and surpass contemporary event in the works of Shakespeare.25 21 these. Most sources are unequivocal. For Romeo The Chorus in Henry V states before the final act and Juliet, Shakespeare probably used only one that the crowds would rush out to welcome home a source, The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, victorious commander such as “the general of our a narrative poem by Arthur Brooke (1562). In gracious empress / As in good time he may, from his monumental Narrative and Dramatic Sources Ireland coming, / Bringing rebellion broached on of Shakespeare (1957–73), Geoffrey Bullough his sword.” (5.0.30) The “general” is consistently carefully distinguishes between a probable source, taken to refer to Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a possible source and a similar text (which he calls who left London with much pomp in March 1599. an analogue). In his thorough introductions, The passage is therefore dated to the summer of Bullough describes the background to these that year, before Essex returned in September in source texts and explains his estimation of them. somewhat unfortunate circumstances. However, The use of a source generally infers the earliest Essex is not named and the passage in question did date for the composition of a play. However, in not appear in the 1600 quarto, only in the 1623 the case of some sources, there is doubt as to Folio text. There is a chance that the playwright whether Shakespeare needed to have read them was alluding to another commander who had set before writing his play. One such text is Strachey’s off with equally high expectations, e.g. Sir John letter (published in 1625, but said to have been Norris, Charles Blunt (Baron Mountjoy) or even composed 1610), which commentators no longer Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormonde.26 accept as a definite source for The Tempest. Another Various attempts have been made to link the discarded source is William Camden’s Remaines plays with astrological events: most notably, of a Greater Worke concerning Britaine which is no David Wiles makes connections between the 22 longer thought to have influenced Coriolanus. calendar and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, while Steve Sohmer argues for similar references (j) Allusions to other texts 27 Thomas Greene makes an important distinction in Julius Caesar. An astronomer at Texas State between allusions and sources, stressing that an University, Donald Olsen, has studied the star allusion is a reference to another text which may described in Bernardo’s early speech in Hamlet have been added at a later stage.23 Since allusions as west of the Pole Star shortly after midnight. Olsen identifies Bernardo’s star as a supernova are not integral to a play, they may reflect when 28 a play was revised or they may even be a later which appeared in 1572. Juliet’s nurse states interpolation. This is most evident in classical “’Tis since the earthquake now eleven years”, allusions: Ovid’s Metamorphoses does not seem to which might refer to the earthquake felt in south- have inspired any particular plot but is alluded to east England in April 1580 (and hence fixing the in almost every play. play’s composition to 1591), but it might also refer to an earthquake in Verona in 1570 (which would With some allusions, it can be difficult to 29 trace the direction of influence. Samuel Daniel’s thus indicate a date of composition c. 1581). In Civil War (1595) is taken to have influenced Lear, Gloucester refers to “these late eclipses in the Shakespeare’s Richard II–Henry IV–Henry V sun and moon” (1.2.97), a reference usually taken tetralogy. Among many similar changes from to date the composition of King Lear shortly after the sources, both authors treat Prince Hal and such co-occurrences in October 1605. However,

© De Vere Society 10 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Introduction an eclipse of the sun often accompanies an eclipse 1974) developed Looney’s thesis and elaborated of the moon and Gloucester might just as well be an alternative and earlier chronology for the referring to similar co-occurrences (eclipses of the composition of the plays using the detailed records sun and moon) in July 1590, February 1598 or reported by E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Nov/Dec 1601 (or to no specific co-occurrences).30 Stage (1923). Clark identified many anonymous If we were sure of the date of composition, we plays in the 1570s and 1580s with early work by could be sure of the allusion. Since the plays can Oxford. Many of her observations are recorded in only be placed within a range of dates, evidence this book in the relevant sections for each play. for allusions to contemporary events and people For Oxford’s life, reference has been made to Alan must be offered cautiously. Nelson’s biography, Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (2003). The Orthodox Dating ultimate purpose of this book is not to establish (or reject) Oxford’s candidacy for authorship but The aim of this study is to consider each play to examine the range of possible dates for each individually regarding its publication and play. performance data (mainly as reported by E. K. In the conclusion to each chapter, the narrowest Chambers William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts possible date range is given, noting that there is no and Problems, 1930) and its sources (mainly as firm evidence to assign any play to any particular reported by Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and year.We should remember that all dates are Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays, 1957–73). conjectural at best and heed the words of David The review of the ‘orthodox’ date assigned to Ellis who states (That Man Shakespeare,2005, composition of each play begins with Chambers 273): (1930), continues with Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor, William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion Since the major impediment to writing a (1987) and includes the dates proposed in the life of Shakespeare is a lack of information, editions published by the Arden Shakespeare more often than not biographers who set Second Series (1953 – 1982), the Arden out to investigate a particular aspect of Shakespeare Third Series (1995 – present), the their study find themselves staring into a Oxford Shakespeare (1982–present) and the New black hole. This at first seems a crippling disadvantage for who, after all, can make Cambridge Shakespeare series (1990–present). In bricks without straw? some cases, the latest edition in the Arden 3 series or in the New Cambridge Shakespeare has not yet In the next section of the Introduction, more been published. All quotations of Shakespeare are careful consideration is given to the uses and from Wells & Taylor, William Shakespeare: The limits of Francis Meres’s evidence. In the final Complete Works (1986). section, there is some attempt to evaluate the use of style and language features in attempting to Oxfordian Dating establish a chronology. The main challenge to the ‘orthodox’ dating has been made by Oxfordians, who maintain the Notes hypothesis that the works attributed to William 1. The earliest editors to accept this as a possibility Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere, were Wells and Taylor in their Complete Earl of Oxford (1550–1604). J. T. Looney in Works of William Shakespeare (Oxford, 1986). Shakespeare Identified(1920) was the first to They print both the text from the Pied Bull propose Oxford as a candidate for authorship of Quarto of 1608 as The History of King Lear the Shakespeare canon and was well aware that and the Folio Text as The Tragedy of King Lear. many plays were assumed to have been composed Previously, the tendency has been to dismiss after Oxford died in 1604. Yet upon examination, those quarto texts which were significantly he noted, documentary evidence for post-1604 different from the Folio text as ‘bad quartos’ but this has been challenged recently, e.g. by composition was lacking. Eva Turner Clark, Kathleen Irace in Reforming the “Bad” Quartos: Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays (1931, rptd performance and provenance of six Shakespearean

first editions (1994), and by Lukas Erne in English Literature (1863). For the significance Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist (2003). of Ingram’s part in the story (overlooked by Clearly, if Shakespeare did produce both the Schoenbaum and Taylor), I am indebted to known quarto texts and the Folio texts, then research by Andrew Murphy (University of any collection known as The Complete Works St Andrews). See “A Biographical Sketch of would need to report these versions as well. John Keils [sic] Ingram” by Gregory Moore in 2. In their Arden 3 edition of Hamlet (2006: 44), History of Economics Review (1995). Ann Thompson & Neil Taylor accept that the 7. Quoted by Gary Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare, three printed versions of the play, Q1 (1603), 174–82 (see note 5). Q2 (1604) and F1 (1623) might have all come 8. Richard Roderick in 1756 had noted that from the author’s own hand. They further Henry VIII had a high number of verse lines accept as possible (pace Jenkins in his Arden 2 with feminine endings (additional, unstressed edition) that Nashe (1589), Henslowe (1594), syllables). The statistical approach to analysis of Lodge (1596) and Harvey (c. 1598–1601) were style was started in earnest by William Walker in referring to Shakespeare’s play (or at least to a 1854 Shakespeare’s Versification and its apparent version of it). Other scholars, e.g. Alexander, Irregularities explained by Examples from Early Shakespeare’s Life and Art (1939), have asserted and Late English Writers, closely followed by that these were definite references to the Bathurst’s Shakespeare’s Versification at different Shakespeare play. Periods of his Life in 1857, promoted by Ingram 3. Winifred Frazer and others (N&Q, 236, 1991: and established by Dowden. 34–5) noted that plays are sometimes marked 9. Chambers’s work was brought up to date by “ne” twice and so could hardly be ‘new’ second James G. McManaway, “Recent Studies time around. Foakes and Rickert (Henslowe’s in Shakespeare’s Chronology”, Shakespeare Diary, 2003, xxxiv, 2nd ed.) have suggested: Survey, 3, 1950, 22–33. A systematic review “One possibility that covers all occurrences (in line with Chambers’s work) can be found of ‘ne’ is that this refers to the licensing of a in The Riverside Shakespeare(ed. G. Blakemore play-book for performance by the Master of the Evans, 1997: 77–87). A shorter review (which Revels” (i.e. does not necessarily mean ‘newly follows Wells and Taylor) is given by Stephen composed’). Neil Carson in A Companion to Greenblatt in The Norton Shakespeare, 1997: Henslowe’s Diary (2004: 68) notes that some 54–57. Many of Greenblatt’s comments (e.g. commentators believe that Titus must have been “Shakespeare began his career, probably in the written earlier and that the play performed by early 1590s” and “We have no direct personal Sussex’s Men would have been marked as “ne” testimony either to support or undermine” [sc. to indicate a revision. Carson adds: “All such these speculations about a possible crisis in speculation is unverifiable.” Shakespeare’s life]) record the uncertainty of 4. The Two Gentlemen of Veronaand The Comedy the evidence used to date the plays. of Errors are not mentioned after Meres until 10. E. A. J. Honigmann in Shakespeare: the ‘lost years’ 1623. They are listed in the Stationers’ Register (1985) develops his arguments for Shakespeare on 8 November 1623 among 18 plays not as an ‘early starter’ by dating at least six previously published. The Comedy of Errors was plays to the 1580s. In their reaction against mentioned in a performance at Grays Inn on Honigmann’s proposal, Wells and Taylor state 28 December 1594. Meres also mentions Love’s (A Textual Companion (1987: 97): “The urge to Labours Won which is taken by some to have push Shakespeare’s first play further back into been an early name for The Taming of the Shrew. the 1580s is palpably designed to fill the black A play similar in title, plot and characters, The hole of our ignorance about those years; but Taming of A Shrew was listed in the SR in 1594 since we must then spread the same number and published in a quarto that year. Opinion of plays over a larger number of years, by is divided as to whether Shakespeare was filling one big vacuum in the 1580s, we simply responsible for the quarto of A Shrew. create other vacuums elsewhere.” Wells & 5. For this brief review of previous attempts to Taylor demonstrate their method of ‘plugging fix the dates and chronology of Shakespeare’s the gaps’ when they consider Two Gentlemen plays, I have followed Samuel Schoenbaum’s of Verona (109); after noting “The play could Shakespeare’s Lives, 1970 and Gary Taylor, belong to any year in the decade before Meres Reinventing Shakespeare: a Cultural History mentioned it,” they then assign a precise date from the Restoration to the Present, 1990. of 1590–1. Honigmann shows that earlier dates 6. John Kells Ingram’s lecture on Shakespeare are tenable. Some editors now suggest a date in was published in The Afternoon Lectures on the 1580s for Two Gentlemen.

11. The manuscript has been studied by W. W. 19. Edward Arber (ed.), A Transcript of the Registers Greg, “Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir of the Company of Stationers of London, Thomas More” in his appendix to his edition 1554 –1640 in five volumes (1875–94). They of Sir Thomas More(MSR, Cambridge, 1923). have been reprinted by W. W. Greg and and The dates have been taken from Stanley Wells E. Boswell (eds), Records of the Court of the & Gary Taylor, A Textual Companion, where Stationers’ Company, 1576 to 1602 (1930). on page 124 they date it to 1603–4 but on They are described (and reported ad loc.) by page 139 they seem to prefer 1593–5. R. C. Chambers in The English Stage and in William Bald in “The Booke of Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Its Problems”, Shakespeare Survey 2 (1949), 20. It is usually assumed that the Pavier Quarto of pp. 44–65 accepts that some arguments are 1619 used false dates to circumvent copyright. tenuous. Other scholars have cast doubts on This may have caused the Lord Chamberlain in Greg’s conclusion, e.g. Georgio Melchiori, 1619 to forbid publication of plays which the “Hand D in Sir Thomas More: An Essay in King’s Men intended to produce (ultimately Misinterpretation in Shakespeare”, Shakespeare as the First Folio). Lukas Erne in Shakespeare Survey, 38, 1986. as a Literary Dramatist (2003) argues that 12. Jonson’s letter also refers to another imprisoned Hemmings and Condell in their preface playwright George Chapman as “a learned and to F1 were alluding to Pavier’s “stolne, and honest Man”, reported in Ben Jonson ed. C. H. surreptitious copies”. Sonia Massai, Shakespeare Herford and Percy Simpson. and the Rise of the Editor, Cambridge, 2007, 13. R. B. McKerrow and F. P. Wilson (eds), The has reviewed these suggestions and offered an Complete Works of Thomas Nashe,5 vols, alternative view of Pavier’s intentions, giving Oxford, 1958, vol 5, 194. him credit for a collected works of Shakespeare. 14. Quoted by Diana Price in Shakespeare’s 21. Gilbert Highet in The Classical Tradition: Greek Unorthodox Biography (2001: 306), from W. and Roman influences on Western Literature W. Greg (ed.), English Literary Autographs 1550 (1949; rptd 1976) describes how the classics – 1650. came down to Renaissance writers through 15. Carson Henslowe’s Diary (60) notes that these the three processes of translation, imitation might not be all the payments made to a and emulation. He devotes an entire chapter to playwright. At any rate, these payments seem Shakespeare, covering the authors mentioned to indicate a date when a play was handed in the text and other writers whose influence over by the playwright(s) to the acting was less obvious, e.g. Virgil and Caesar. company and make a more reliable guide to 22. Stuart Gillespie, Shakespeare’s Books, 2004, notes the date of composition than does a record of a that Camden’s Remaines is only cited very performance. briefly and only for two plays: in Coriolanus it 16. In a poetical letter to Ben Jonson, Francis is only claimed to have influenced the wording Beaumont (Norton MS 1403), recalls the in Menenius’ fable of the Belly, where the belly witty banter at the Mermaid Tavern. We only is called “a gulf”. Gillespie notes that the Fable have the later testimony of Thomas Fuller in was used in the main sources, i.e. Livy and Worthies (1662) that Shakespeare was involved: Plutarch, and by many other writers such as “Many were the wit-combats betwixt him Sir Philip Sidney. For King Lear, a few verbal [Shakespeare] and Ben Jonson.” For modern reminiscences have also been claimed by some biographers, it would be marvellous to have editors but dismissed by Muir in his Arden 2 Jonson mocking Shakespeare for missing a edition (revised 1952) and ignored by R. A. “roister to remember” at the Mermaid Tavern Foakes (Arden 3, 1997) and by Stanley Wells because he was in his attic finishing off his (Oxford Edition, 2000). latest play about a mad Danish prince. Sadly, 23. Thomas Greene in The Light in Troy: Imitation this is “such stuff as dreams are made on”. and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (1982) 17. J. R. Mulryne, The Spanish Tragedy,The New carefully distinguished a passing allusion from Mermaids Press, 1970, Introduction, p. xv. sustained interaction with a source text. Stephen Thomas Heywood was writing in The Apology Greenblatt in Shakespeare Negotiations (1988) for Actors. considers how a writer such as Shakespeare 18. J. W. Harper, Tamberlaine, New Mermaids conducted a dialogue with another text. Press, 1971, Introduction, p. viii: “The first 24. H. E. Rollins (New Variorum edition of clear attribution of the play to Marlowe was The Sonnets, 1944) quotes Joseph Conrad by Francis Kirkman in his edition of Nicomede (Jahrbuch, 1882, 196) when considering (1671).” Daniel’s possible influence on Shakespeare’s

sonnets. L. A. Michel (ed.), The Civil Wars by 27 David Wiles in Shakespeare’s Almanac: ‘A Samuel Daniel (1958), considers Shakespeare as Midsummer Night’s Dream’, Marriage and both a source and as a beneficiary of Daniel. the Elizabethan Calendar (1993); S. Sohmer, Stuart Gillespie in Shakespeare’s Books (2004) Shakespeare’s Mystery Play: The Opening of the states that considerable disagreement exists Globe Theatre(1999). over the direction of borrowing, arising from 28 D. W. Olsen et al., Sky & Telescope, 96, (1998) difficulty in establishing the relative dating 68–73, quoted by Eric Altschuler, House of Daniel’s work and Shakespeare’s tetralogy Magazine, Royal Astrononmical Society, and whether both relied on source(s) now lost. October 1999. Daniel’s Cleopatra (the version published in 29 The 1580 earthquake as the source of the 1594) is usually taken to be an influence on reference was suggested by Tyrwhitt and the Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra (registered 1570 Verona earthquake by Hunter, (quoted in 1608 but not published until 1623) as Daniel by H. H. Furness, Variorum edition of Romeo had made some small revisions in his 1607 and Juliet). There are various contemporary edition. accounts of the earthquake which struck on 25 Wells & Taylor, Complete Works, 567, call it an 6 April 1580, e.g. by Thomas Churchyard and “uncharacteristic direct, topical reference”. But Anthony Munday. Gabriel Harvey’s description neither the General nor the Empress is actually was published in Spenser’s Three Familiar named in the passage. Letters, 1580. Steve Sohmer has considered 26 See further discussion in the chapters on Henry the 1570 Verona earthquake in “Shakespeare’s V and on Famous Victories. Sir John Norris Time-Riddles in Romeo and Juliet Solved”, (or Norreys), died in 1597 and was a highly English Literary Renaissance, 35, 2005: 407–28. acclaimed soldier under Elizabeth. As the 30 John Harvey predicted these co-occurrences Queen’s General in Ireland, he was responsible of solar and lunar eclipses in A Discoursive for the slaughter of innocent people on the Probleme Concerning Prophesies (1588), quoted island of Rathlin in 1575. Charles Blount, by H. H. Furness, Shakespeare: King Lear New Baron Mountjoy, served as the Queen’s Deputy Variorum edition, 1880, p. 379. in Ireland in 1600–01. Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormonde, was Lord Treasurer of Ireland and fought to suppress the Desmond Rebellions in 1569–73.