appeared; in the succeeding year another quarto appeared; in 1608, came out a third edition, "with new additions of the Parliament Scene." These additions had probably been suppressed from fear of offending the Queen; this appears from an examination of the context, and from the fact which the 1608 quarto states, that it was produced “as acted by the Lord Chamberlain's Servants," implying most probably that it was printed from the old MS.

This point seems, too, to suggest an early date for this play; for considering the historical facts adduced by Malone and others, as to the Pope's Bull in 1597 inciting the subjects of Elizabeth to depose her, and as to the treatment of Hayward shortly afterwards, it may be asked if it is likely that Shakespeare would have written the play at that period?

It is more likely that Shakespeare, having brought out Richard III. to complete the Henry VI. series of plays, was led by the great success of his work, to write Richard II. as an introduction to the Lancastrian plays. We have dated Richard III. in 1593 or 1594, and Richard II. may be placed in 1594; it is evidently, as has been remarked before, closely allied to King John in style, while it is equally certainly much earlier than Henry IV.

Shakespeare, in preparing for the play, used Holinshed's Chronicles [2nd edition, 1586—7 (see Messrs. Clarke and Wright: Clarendon Press Richard II.)], referring now and then to Hall.

Charles Knight and Grant White think Shakespeare borrowed certain passages from Daniel's Civil Wars [2nd edition, 1595, in which the part referring to the fate of Richard II. was added]; but Delius, Clark and Wright, and Ward, think the coincidences too indecisive; and if the above-assumed date be correct, the borrowing, if there be any, must be on Daniel's part.

Chalmers argued for a later date (1596) by comparing the X description of the rebellion in Act i., with the outbreak in that country in Elizabeth's time in 1594—6.

Chalmers also pointed out that, in Act v. Sc. 3, 1. 1—24, in the description of the Prince and his loose companions, there are "sketches, in which we may perceive the workings of the poet's mind, which had drawn an outline that was to be filled up and finished in several subsequent dramatical histories."

66

The late Mr. R. Simpson (ut supra, pp. 407–409) dwells upon the grievances of 1592 and 1593, a time of fear and discontent." “At a time when the country was full of secret and open murmurs against a fiscal oppression and mismanagement which specially pressed upon the poet himself, he produced Richard II., and put into it such passages as these:

"The King is not himself, but basely led
By flatterers; and what they will inform
Merely in hate 'gainst any of us all,
That will the King severely prosecute

'Gainst us, our lives, our children and our heirs.'

"The commons hath he pill'd with grievous taxes
And lost their hearts: the nobles hath he fin'd
For ancient quarrels, and quite lost their hearts;
And daily new exactions are devised—
As blanks, benevolences, and I know not what;
But what, o' God's name, doth become of this?'

"Benevolences were never heard of in Richard's day, and Shakspere would not have used the word unless he meant to refer to times for which he and his audience cared more. Charles Lamb says :-" The reluctant pangs of abdicating royalty in Edward II. [Marlowe, 1592] furnished hints which Shakespeare scarcely improved in his Richard II.;" but Fleay says that Shakespeare's play stands to Marlowe's in the relation that Richard III. bears to Henry VI.

Mr. Fleay, chiefly relying upon the "rhyme-test," classes Richard II. in his first period, dating it two years before Richard III. and John; he adds—“ Shakespeare in it seems not to move with the same freedom that he does in later plays, and the whole work has an artificial air." Mr.

Swinburne, too, appears to consider Richard II. the earliest of Shakespeare's historical plays.

Mr. Fleay, however, admits that the presence of Alexandrines in Richard II. is a sign of the second period, and that the absence of prose in the three plays (Richard II., Richard III., and John) is an indication that they may be grouped together. To this, add the remarkable absence of classical allusions" in this set, which I before pointed out (see p. 43).

66

In this play, as signs of early work, we may notice frequent rhymes (rhyming couplets, alternate rhymes, and alliteration); a certain want of characterisation; indeed, Hartley Coleridge goes so far as to say that "except Richard II., the characters are nobodies;" the unpleasing effect produced, as the same writer observes, from the want of a striking female character; and a looseness in the arrangement of the play (compare, for instance, the violation of dramatic rules in the connection between the first and second acts. But, as Messrs. Clark and Wright observe, "minor blemishes do not invalidate [S. T.] Coleridge's statement that Richard II. is the most admirable of the purely historical plays."

MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.

"My tricksy spirit."-Tempest.

"If thou art changed to aught, 'is to an ass."

Comedy of Errors.

There is very little directly external evidence with regard to the date of this play; Meres mentioned it in 1598; Thomas Fisher entered it on the Stationers' Register in Oct., 1600, and soon afterwards brought out a quarto edition; in the same year, too (1600), Roberts the printer issued another quarto, which, strange to say (but see Appendix, p. 181), was used in the publication of the first folio. The

quartos state that this comedy had "been sundry times publickely acted, by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his Servants."

It has frequently been suggested that a Midsummer Night's Dream was composed to grace some marriage festivities; and the supposition has been supported by referring to its lyrical and almost operatic tone, to its masque-like form, and to Oberon's song at the conclusion. But this suggestion may perhaps be answered by noting the difficulty that has been experienced in finding any nuptial event to tally with the supposed date of its composition, by the unlikelihood of so unique an undertaking on Shakespeare's part being unrecorded, by the inappropriateness of such phrases as Bottom's statement in iii. 1, 146—8, “yet to say truth, reason and love keep little company together now. adays," and by the promise in Puck's epilogue that “ we will make amends ere long."

It may be well, however, to mention the marriage-occasions to which different writers have assigned it. Tieck and Ulrici think it was composed for the nuptials of Lord Southampton; but the mention by Meres would seem to negative this; unless we suppose with Mr. Gerald Massey that it was written some time before, "when it may have been thought the Queen's consent could be obtained." He suggests 1595; and adds that it may have been performed in January, 1598, before Southampton's departure for Paris, and again at the entertainment in Essex House on February 14th. But this secret marriage can scarcely have been accompanied by such festivities as this would imply.

Elze, Kurz, and Dowden, however, think the play was written to do honour to the marriage of the Earl of Essex with the Lady Frances, the daughter of Walsingham and widow of Sidney; as that event took place in the early spring of 1590, this theory would throw the date back to 1589.

The following passages in the comedy have been referred to contemporary events :

I

Titania's description of the disastrous state of the weather (ii. 1, 88—117) is certainly very much drawn out; and when taken with other passages in the play, would seem to point to some recent catastrophes. Now the chief dearth in Shakespeare's time was in 1594-5; and to this the lines probably refer; though it ought to be added Mr. HalliwellPhillipps has quoted Dr. Simon Forman and Stowe for similar weather in 1591; while Dyce says the inference is "ridiculous, for 'cold Quince's joke,' that 'some of your French Crowns have no hair at all' (i. 1, 99, 100), has undoubted reference to the paternal anxieties of Henry the Fourth, and could scarcely have been uttered before 1594 or 1595."

Mr. Chalmers, with his usual historical ingenuity, referred the play to 1598, because Parliament, in 1597, passed a Bill "to prevent marriages without bans," and to stay “the stealing away of children without parents' consent;" and because in the same year, "the price of corn rose enormously," producing a famine.

As to the well-known lines, v. 1, 52—56,

"The thrice-three Muses mourning for the death
Of Learning, late deceased in beggary!'

This is some satire, keen and critical,

Not sorting with a nuptial ceremony;"

the following opinions have been advanced

:

(1) Mr. Dyce (again) says it would be "ridiculous" to refer to any particular person; while some find an allusion to

(2) The death of Spenser, on January 16th, 1599. This is, of course, impossible, unless we suppose, with Mr. Halliwell-Phillips, that it is a later insertion. Elze thinks it may have been inserted as a compliment to Essex, who

1594-5.

Compare Titania's remark "as in revenge" (ii. 1, 89), with Stow's last words in his description of the storms, pestilence and dearth of "such was our sins deserving it." (See Mr. Furnivall's Forewords to Stafford's Examination, &c. N. S. S. 1876, for extracts from Stowe.)

E