INTRODUCTION

I. DATE OF COMPOSITION.

" MACBETH” was first published in the first folio,1 seven years after the death of Shakspere. That it had not previously been published is indicated by its presence among the plays for which Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard, the publishers of the first folio, secured copyright November 8, 1623, as not previously entered to other

men.

The composition of the play is assigned by nearly all scholars to 1605 or 1606; it has even been suggested that the particular occasion for which it was composed was the visit of the King of Denmark in July, 1606, but numerous as were the entertainments then provided, there is no

1 The first folio appeared in 1623, the second in 1632, the third (two issues) in 1663 and 1664, the fourth in 1685. These are collections of all the plays, essentially as they now appear in complete editions of the plays, the poems and sonnets not being included. Pericles, a part of which is regarded as Shakspere's, was not printed in the first folio or second folio, but appeared in the 1664 issue of the third folio (and in the fourth folio) along with six other plays which are not admitted by most scholars to be Shakspere's. The folios vary somewhat in size, but measure about thirteen inches by eight and three quarters.

The quartos, on the other hand, are small books, about eight and a quarter by five and a half inches, containing each a single play. They began to appear as early as 1594, sometimes with the permission of Shakspere and his partners in the theatre, sometimes against their wish, the manuscript having been obtained fraudulently. Before 1623 seventeen of the thirty-seven plays had, appeared in quarto.

evidence that this was one of them. The arguments made use of to determine the date are not very strong. One of them is that when King James visited Oxford in August, 1605, there advanced to meet him, out of a castle made of ivy, near St. John's Gate, three students dressed to represent the weird sisters, and, after referring to the prophecy long before made to Banquo, his ancestor, allhailed him and the Queen and the two princes. By some report of this, it is said, the subject of "Macbeth" may have been suggested to Shakspere. In the Porter's speech (II, iii, 1 ff.) are three passages supposed to be allusions to topics of the day: (a) mention of the "farmer that hanged himself on the expectation of plenty" is supposed to point to the plentiful corn harvest of 1606; (b) the "equivocator" is interpreted as being a hit at Henry Garnet, Superior of the Order of Jesuits in England, who was tried March, 1606, for complicity in the Gunpowder Plot; (c) the humor of the English tailor's stealing out of a French hose is thought to be increased by the (unproved) fact that in 1606 tight-fitting hose were the fashion. A further argument for 1605 or 1606 depends upon the supposition that in I, iii, 108 is implied an actual ceremony of investiture, suggested by the investiture, in Scotland, of Sir David Murray as Lord Scone. Insufficient as these arguments are, there seems little reason to doubt the proposition they are used to support. This conclusion is in harmony also with the fact that the prediction of "two-fold balls and treble sceptres" would be especially appropriate after-but would it not take with the audience equally well immediately before?—the official proclamation of James as King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland on the 24th of October, 1604.1

'In The Puritan, a play published first in 1607-conjectured by Fleay to have been written by Middleton in 1606—and republished in the third folio as by Shakspere, occurs a passage which has been

Mr. Fleay ("Life and Work of Shakespeare," pp. 238242, and Poet-Lore, 1893, pp. 419, 513, 564) maintains that Shakspere was one of the party of players who went to Scotland in 1601 and performed before King James at Aberdeen, and that while there he wrote a version of Macbeth," which he revised and improved in 1606, the subject having been recalled to his attention by the

66

called " a manifest allusion" to Banquo's ghost. Could we be sure of this, we should have a very convenient upper limit for the date of Macbeth. But the allusion is far from manifest. The situation is this (Act IV, sc. iii): George Pyeboard and Captain Idle have "by magic" recovered for the simple Sir Godfrey a fine gold chain, which they had had stolen and hid by a confederate, and now have raised from his coffin Corporal Oath, who is just being carried past the house to be buried, having been given a sleeping potion a few hours before by George. The coffin is opened, the Corporal revives, sees the white sheet in which he is wrapped, and says: "Zounds, where am I? Covered with snow!" Then, taking Lady Plus for the hostess of an inn, he orders a hot porridge and a fire. She commands her servants Nicholas and Frailty to help him into the house, but Nicholas says: "Pray, call out the maids; I shall ne'er have the heart to do't, indeed la!". Frailty: "Nor I, neither; I cannot abide to handle a ghost, of all men." Then Sir Godfrey, feeling particularly gay over the recovery of his chain, invites the whole crowd in to a banquet: "Ay, and a banquet ready by this time, Master Sheriff, to which I most cheerfully invite you and your late prisoner there. See you this goodly chain, sir? Mum! no more words; 'twas lost and is found again. Come, my inestimable bullies, we'll talk of your noble acts in sparkling charnico [wine]; and instead of a jester, we'll have the ghost in the white sheet sit at the upper end of the table." I have given the situation in detail, because I think that, taken apart from its context, the passage produces an entirely false impression. It is not some well-known ghost that is to be called in for the occasion; it is the one who has just been raised in his white sheet, who is invited with the rest of the crowd. Of course it may still be said that to such a banquet the MacbethBanquo scene on the boards of a rival theatre at the same time would give additional point. Granted but that is very different from an unmistakable allusion; the situation does not need that aid.

Oxford address to the King. His arguments are, that the description of Cawdor's death is remarkably like that of the Earl of Essex (February 25, 1601) in Stowe's "Chronicle," and that the play is more closely related to "Hamlet" and "Julius Cæsar" than to "King Lear" or "Timon of Athens." He thinks that there was probably a play on the subject prior to 1596, which may have been used by Shakspere. The evidence for this is that a “Ballad of Macdobeth" is mentioned in the "Stationers' Register" for 1596, and again by Kempe in his "Nine Daies Wonder" (1600). To the arguments for the 1601 date, he might have added-had he chosen to do so-a "manifest allusion" to "Macbeth," II, ii, 3, in Middleton's "Blurt, Master Constable" (1602), III, i, sign. E. (cf. "Centurie of Prayse," p. 51).

II. FORMAN'S DIARY.

When Collier first published Dr. Simon Forman's account of a performance of "Macbeth" attended by him at the Globe Theatre, some scholars were inclined to revise their opinion as to the date of the play, because it seemed unlikely that Forman would have taken the trouble to give so detailed an account of any play that was not new. But this argument was based on a misapprehension of Forman's purpose in taking notes. The title of the little MS. volume of fourteen leaves, only five of which contain writing, is "The Booke of Plaies and Notes therof per formans for Common Pollicie." The words, "for Common Pollicie," indicate that he thought he might obtain from plays valuable hints for his own guidance in life. This is confirmed by the notes themselves; for instance,

:

1 It can be proved-by the sort of proof commonly used in such matters that Shakspere himself was the author of this early version, but perhaps it is just as well not to prove it.

after recording how in "Richard II" Jack Straw, "not being pollitick," was suddenly stabbed by Walworth, he says: "Therfore in such a case or the like, never admit any party, without a bar betwen, for A man cannot be so [too] wise, nor kepe him selfe to safe;" and so frequently. Besides this" Richard II," which is not Shakspere's, Forman took notes on three plays, all Shakspere's: "Winter's Tale," "Cymbeline," and "Macbeth." His account of "Macbeth" is as follows:

“In Mackbeth at the glob, 16j0, the 20 of Aprill,1 ther was to be obserued, firste, howe Mackbeth and Bancko, 2 noble men of Scotland, Ridinge thorowe a wod, the[r] stode before them 3 women feiries or Nimphes, And saluted Mackbeth, sayinge, 3 tyms vnto him, haille mackbeth, king of Codon; for thou shalt be a kinge, but shalt beget No kinge, &c. then said Bancko, what all to mackbeth And nothing to me. Yes, said the nimphes, haille to thee Banko, thou shalt beget kinges, yet be no kinge. And so they departed & cam to the courte of Scotland to Dunkin king of Scotes, and yt was in the dais of Edward the Confessor. And Dunkin bad them both kindly wellcome, And made Mackbeth forth with Prince of Northum berland, and sent him hom to his own castell, and appointed mackbeth to prouid for him, for he wold Sup with him the next dai at night, & did soe. And mackebeth contrived to kull Dunkin, & thorowe the persuasion of his wife did that night Murder the kinge in his own Castell, beinge his gueste. And ther were many prodigies seen that night & the dai before. And when Mack Beth had murdred the kinge, the blod on his handes could not be washed of

'I follow Dr. Furnivall's reprint, Trans. New Sh. Soc. 1875–76, App. ii. All other copies of Forman give Saturday as standing in the text after Aprill; Dr. Furnivall omits it, and has no note. The presence or absence of this word is decidedly important, for in 1610 April 20 did not fall on Saturday, whereas in 1611 (the year of the two other dated accounts) it did. If Forman really wrote Saturday, it is easy to understand how he came to set down the wrong year, or the wrong day of the month; but if he did not give the day of the week, there is no reason for maintaining that this entry also belongs to 1611, as has been argued.