Chronology Of William Shakespeare's Plays

This article presents a possible ''chronological listing of the composition of the plays of William Shakespeare''.

Shakespearean scholars, beginning with Edmond Malone in 1778, have attempted to reconstruct the relative chronology of Shakespeare's ''oeuvre'' by various means, using external evidence (such as references to the plays by Shakespeare's contemporaries in both critical material and private documents, allusions in other plays, entries in the Stationers' Register, and records of performance and publication), and internal evidence (allusions within the plays to contemporary events, composition and publication dates of sources used by Shakespeare, stylistic analysis looking at the development of his style and diction over time, and the plays' context in the contemporary theatrical and literary ''milieu''). Most modern chronologies are based on the work of E.K. Chambers in "The Problem of Chronology" (1930), published in Volume 1 of his book ''William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems''.

Introduction

Since the surviving evidence is fragmentary, there is not, nor can there be, a definitive or precise chronology. Performance history is often of limited use, as the first ''recorded'' performances of many plays were not necessarily when the plays were first performed. For example, the first recorded performance of ''Romeo and Juliet'' was not until 1662, yet it is known the play was performed in Shakespeare's lifetime. At best, the performance history of a play establishes only the ''terminus ante quem'' of its composition.

Similarly, dates of first publication are often relatively useless in determining a chronology, as roughly half the plays were not published until seven years after Shakespeare's death, in the ''First Folio'' (1623), prepared by John Heminges and Henry Condell, and published by Edward Blount, William Jaggard and Isaac Jaggard. Performance dates and publication dates are also problematic insofar as many of the plays were performed several years before they were published. For example, ''Titus Andronicus'' was performed in 1592, but not published until 1594; ''Othello'' was performed in 1604, but not published until 1622; and ''King Lear'' was performed in 1606, but not published until 1608. Performance and publication dates can thus be used only to determine terminal dates of composition, with the initial dates often remaining much more speculative.

In addition, some scholars dissent from the conventional dating system altogether. A notable scholar who does so is E. A. J. Honigmann, who has attempted to push back the beginning of Shakespeare's career by four or five years, to the mid-1580s, with his "early start" theory. Honigmann argues that Shakespeare began his career with ''Titus Andronicus'' in 1586, though the conventional dating is that Shakespeare began writing plays after arriving in London in about 1590. Most scholars, however, adhere to a more orthodox chronology, and some, such as Gary Taylor and Sidney Thomas, argue that the early start theory causes more problems than it solves.

Scholarship

E.K. Chambers

The chronology presented by E.K. Chambers in 1930 is as follows:

* ''Henry VI, Part 2'' (1590–1591)
* ''Henry VI, Part 3'' (1590–1591)
* ''Henry VI, Part 1'' (1591–1592)
* ''Richard III'' (1592–1593)
* ''The Comedy of Errors'' (1592–1593)
* ''Titus Andronicus'' (1593–1594)
* ''The Taming of the Shrew'' (1593–1594)
* ''The Two Gentlemen of Verona'' (1594–1595)
* ''Love's Labour's Lost'' (1594–1595)
* ''Romeo and Juliet'' (1594–1595)
* ''Richard II'' (1595–1596)
* ''A Midsummer Night's Dream'' (1595–1596)
* '' King John'' (1596–1597)
* ''The Merchant of Venice'' (1596–1597)
* ''Henry IV, Part 1'' (1597–1598)
* '' Henry IV, Part 2'' (1597–1598)
* ''Much Ado About Nothing'' (1598–1599)
* ''Henry V'' (1598–1599)
* ''Julius Caesar'' (1599–1600)
* ''As You Like It'' (1599–1600)
* ''Twelfth Night'' (1599–1600)
* ''Hamlet'' (1600–1601)
* ''The Merry Wives of Windsor'' (1600–1601)
* ''Troilus and Cressida'' (1601–1602)
* ''All's Well That Ends Well'' (1602–1603)
* ''Measure for Measure'' (1604–1605)
* ''Othello'' (1604–1605)
* ''King Lear'' (1605–1606)
* ''Macbeth'' (1605–1606)
* ''Antony and Cleopatra'' (1606–1607)
* ''Coriolanus'' (1607–1608)
* ''Timon of Athens'' (1607–1608)
* ''Pericles, Prince of Tyre'' (1608–1609)
* ''Cymbeline'' (1609–1610)
* ''The Winter's Tale'' (1610–1611)
* '' The Tempest'' (1611–1612)
* ''Henry VIII'' (1612–1613)
* ''The Two Noble Kinsmen'' (1612–1613)

Modern ''Complete Works''

There are six major modern scholarly editions of the ''Complete Works of Shakespeare'':
* ''The Riverside Shakespeare'' (edited by G. Blakemore Evans in 1974, with a second edition in 1996)
* ''The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works'' (edited by Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, John Jowett and William Montgomery in 1986, with a second edition in 2005)
* ''The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition'' (edited by Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard and Katharine Eisaman Maus in 1997, with a second edition in 2008 and a third in 2015)
* '' The Arden Shakespeare: Complete Works'' (edited by Richard Proudfoot, Ann Thompson and David Scott Kastan in 1998, with a second edition in 2002 and a third in 2011)
* ''The Complete Pelican Shakespeare'' (edited by Stephen Orgel and A. R. Braunmuller in 2002), and
* '' The RSC Shakespeare: Complete Works'' (edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen in 2007).

Additionally, as with Oxford, Arden, Pelican and the RSC, the New Cambridge Shakespeare, the New Penguin Shakespeare, the Signet Classic Shakespeare, the Dover Wilson Shakespeare, the Shakespeare Folios and the Folger Shakespeare Library all publish scholarly editions of individual plays, although none has issued a complete works.

''The Arden Shakespeare'' presents the plays in alphabetical order of their titles, without any attempt to construct an overall chronology. The Oxford, Riverside, Norton and RSC collections each rely on chronologies that differ from one another and attempt only approximate dating. The following list is based on ''The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works'' (2nd ed.) and the accompanying ''William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion'' (Revised ed.), edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor.

Chronology

''

The Two Gentlemen of Verona'' (1589–1591)

:''First official record'': in Francis Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'' (1598), referred to as "''Gentlemen of Verona''."
:''First published'': ''First Folio'' (1623).
:''First recorded performance'': an adaptation by Benjamin Victor was performed at Drury Lane in 1762. The earliest known performance of the straight Shakespearean text was at Covent Garden on 15 April 1784, although because of the reference to the play in ''Palladis Tamia'', we know it was definitely performed in Shakespeare's lifetime.
:''Evidence'': Stanley Wells argues that the play's "dramatic structure is comparatively unambitious, and while some of its scenes are expertly constructed, those involving more than, at the most, four characters betray an uncertainty of technique suggestive of inexperience." The play is therefore considered one of the first Shakespeare composed after his arrival in London ''c.''1590, at which point he would have lacked theatrical experience. Furthermore, the discussion between Launce and Speed regarding the vices and virtues of Launce's mistress (3.1.276–359) seems to borrow from John Lyly's ''Midas'', which was written in late 1588 and/or early 1589, thus fixing a ''terminus post quem'' for the play. This situates the date of composition as somewhere between 1589 and 1591, by which time it is known Shakespeare was working on the ''Henry VI'' plays. In his 2008 edition of the play for the Oxford Shakespeare, Roger Warren, following E.A.J. Honigmann, suggests Shakespeare may have written the play prior to his arrival in London, possibly as early as 1587, although he acknowledges this theory is purely speculative.

''

The Taming of the Shrew'' (1590–1591)

:''First official record'': possible version of the play entered into Stationers' Register by Peter Short on 2 May 1594 as "a booke intituled A plesant Conceyted historie called the Tayminge of a Shrowe." First record of the play as it exists today is found in the ''First Folio'' (1623).
:''First published'': possible version of the play published in quarto in 1594 as ''A Pleasant Conceited Historie, called The taming of a Shrew'' (printed by Peter Short for Cuthbert Burby). This text was republished in 1596 (again by Short for Burby) and 1607 (by Valentine Simmes for Nicholas Ling). The play as it exists today was first published in the ''First Folio'' as ''The Taming of the Shrew''.
:''Additional information (publication)'': there is a general lack of scholarly agreement regarding the exact relationship between the 1594 ''A Shrew'' and the 1623 ''The Shrew''. Originally, ''A Shrew'' was seen as a non-Shakespearean source for ''The Shrew'', meaning ''The Shrew'' must have been completed sometime after 2 May 1594. This remained the predominant theory until 1850, when Samuel Hickson suggested that ''A Shrew'' was in some way derived from ''The Shrew''. Peter Alexander developed Hickson's work into his reported text/bad quarto theory, which necessitates that ''The Shrew'' must have been written prior to 2 May 1594. However, there are other theories about the relationship between the texts. In 1942, R.A. Houk posited the "''Ur-Shrew''" theory (in analogy with the "''Ur-Hamlet''" theory), suggesting that the plays are two completely unrelated texts by different authors based on the same (now lost) source. In 1943, G.I. Duthie refined this theory, suggesting that ''A Shrew'' was a reported text of an early draft of ''The Shrew''. In his 1998 edition of ''A Shrew'' for the New Cambridge Shakespeare: The Early Quartos series, Stephen Roy Miller suggested ''A Shrew'' was an adaptation of ''The Shrew'' written by someone other than Shakespeare. Critics remain divided on this issue.
:''First recorded performance'': according to Philip Henslowe's diary, a play called ''The Tamynge of A Shrowe'' was performed at Newington Butts on 11 June 1594. This could have been either the 1594 ''A Shrew'' or the Shakespearean ''The Shrew'', but as the Admiral's Men and the Lord Chamberlain's Men, Shakespeare's own company, were sharing the theatre at the time, and, thus, Shakespeare himself was probably there, scholars tend to assume that it was ''The Shrew'' The Shakespearean version was definitely performed at court before Charles I and Henrietta Maria on 26 November 1633, where it was described as "likt."
:''Evidence'': a ''terminus ante quem'' for ''A Shrew'' would seem to be August 1592; a stage direction at 3.21 mentions "Simon," which probably refers to the actor Simon Jewell, who was buried on 21 August 1592. ''The Shrew'' must have been written earlier than 1593, as Anthony Chute's ''Beauty Dishonoured, written under the title of Shore's wife'' (published in June 1593) contains the line "He calls his Kate, and she must come and kiss him." This must refer to ''The Shrew'', as there is no corresponding "kissing scene" in ''A Shrew''. There are also verbal similarities between both ''Shrew'' plays and the anonymous play '' A Knack to Know a Knave'' (first performed in June 1592). ''Knack'' features several passages common to both ''A Shrew'' and ''The Shrew'', but it also borrows several passages unique to ''The Shrew''. This suggests ''The Shrew'' was on stage prior to June 1592. However, Kier Elam further narrows the terminal date of ''The Shrew'' to 1591, based on Shakespeare's probable use of two sources published that year; Abraham Ortelius' map of Italy in the fourth edition of ''Theatrum Orbis Terrarum'' and John Florio's ''Second Fruits''. As neither ''Shrew'' play is likely to have been written any earlier than 1590, this places the likely date of composition of ''The Shrew'' as 1590–1591, with ''A Shrew'' written sometime prior to August 1592.

''

Henry VI, Part 2'' (1591)

:''First official record'': version of the play entered into the Stationers' Register by Thomas Millington on 12 March 1594 as "a booke intituled, the firste parte of the Contention of the twoo famous houses of York and Lancaster with the deathe of the good Duke Humfrey and the banishement and Deathe of the Duke of Suffolk and the tragicall ende of the prowd Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade and the Duke of Yorkes ffirste clayme unto the Crowne."
:''First published'': version of the play published in quarto in 1594 as ''The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Jack Cade: and the Duke of Yorke's first claim unto the Crowne'' (printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington). This text was republished in 1600 (by Valentine Simmes for Millington) and in 1619. The 1619 text was printed with the 1595 octavo of ''Henry VI, Part 3'' under the title ''The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt'', as part of William Jaggard's "False Folio" (printed by Thomas Pavier). The 1623 ''Folio'' text of ''2 Henry VI'' appears under the title ''The second Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Good Duke Humfrey''.
:''Additional information (publication)'': scholars are undecided as to the exact nature of the relationship between the 1594 ''The Contention'' and the 1623 ''2 Henry VI''. There are four main theories: ''The Contention'' is a bad quarto, a reported text constructed from memory based upon a performance of ''2 Henry VI''; ''The Contention'' is an early draft of ''2 Henry VI''; ''The Contention'' is both a bad quarto ''and'' an early draft (i.e. a reported text based upon a staging of an early draft of the play); ''The Contention'' is an anonymous source for ''2 Henry VI''. Originally, the bad quarto theory was generally accepted by scholars. First suggested by Samuel Johnson in the original edition of ''The Plays of William Shakespeare'' (1765), it remained the predominant theory until challenged by Edmond Malone in ''The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare'' (1790), favouring the early draft theory. In 1929, Peter Alexander and Madeleine Doran re-established the dominance of the bad quarto theory. Scholars have continued to debate the issue since then, with no real consensus reached. The source theory, originated by Georg Gottfried Gervinus in 1849 has fallen out of favour in the twentieth and twentieth-first centuries.
:''First recorded performance'': although it is known that the play was definitely performed in Shakespeare's day, adaptations dominated the stage throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The earliest known such adaptation was in 1681, with John Crowne's two-part play, ''Henry the Sixth, The First Part'' and ''The Misery of Civil War''. Two more adaptations followed in 1723. The first was ''Humfrey Duke of Gloucester'' by Ambrose Philips, the second was Theophilus Cibber's ''King Henry VI: A Tragedy'', both of which adapted scenes from ''2 Henry VI''. Another adaptation followed in 1817, J.H. Merivale's ''Richard Duke of York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster'', which used material from all three ''Henry VI'' plays, but removed everything not directly related to York. The earliest known production of the Shakespearean ''2 Henry VI'' was on 23 April 1864 at the Surrey Theatre, directed by James Anderson.
:''Evidence'': it is known that ''True Tragedy'' (i.e. ''3 Henry VI'') was on stage by June 1592. It is also known that ''True Tragedy'' was definitely a sequel to ''The Contention'', meaning ''The Contention'' must also have been on stage by early 1592 at the latest. It is also thought that ''Henry VI, Part 1'' was a new play in March 1592. If ''The Contention'' predates ''1 Henry VI'', the theatrical evidence would place the likely date of ''2 Henry VI'' as 1591.

''

Henry VI, Part 3'' (1591)

:''First official record'': version of the play published in octavo in 1595. ''3 Henry VI'' was never entered into the Stationers' Register.
:''First published'': version of the play published in octavo in 1595 as ''The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the Whole Contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke'' (printed by Peter Short for Thomas Millington). This text was republished in quarto in 1600 (by William White for Millington) and in 1619. The 1619 text was printed with the 1594 quarto of ''2 Henry VI'' under the title ''The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt'', as part of William Jaggard's "False Folio" (printed by Thomas Pavier). The 1623 ''Folio'' text of ''3 Henry VI'' appears under the title ''The third Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Duke of Yorke''.
:''Additional information (publication)'': scholars are undecided as to the exact nature of the relationship between the 1595 ''True Tragedy'' and the 1623 ''3 Henry VI''. There are four main theories: ''True Tragedy'' is a "bad octavo", a reported text constructed from memory based upon a performance of ''3 Henry VI''; ''True Tragedy'' is an early draft of ''3 Henry VI''; ''True Tragedy'' is both a bad quarto ''and'' an early draft (i.e. a reported text based upon a staging of an early draft of the play); ''True Tragedy'' is an anonymous source for ''3 Henry VI''. Originally, the bad quarto theory was generally accepted by scholars. First suggested by Samuel Johnson in the original edition of ''The Plays of William Shakespeare'' (1765), it remained the predominant theory until challenged by Edmond Malone in ''The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare'' (1790), favouring the early draft theory. In 1929, Peter Alexander and Madeleine Doran re-established the dominance of the bad quarto theory. Scholars have continued to debate the issue since then, with no real consensus reached. The source theory, originated by Georg Gottfried Gervinus in 1849 has fallen out of favour in the twentieth and twentieth-first centuries.
:''First recorded performance'': although it is known that the play was definitely performed in Shakespeare's day, adaptations dominated the stage throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The earliest known such adaptation was in 1681, with John Crowne's two-part play, ''Henry the Sixth, The First Part'' and ''The Misery of Civil War''. In 1699, ''3 Henry VI'' was also partly incorporated into Colley Cibber's '' The Tragical History of King Richard the Third''. In 1723, Theophilus Cibber's ''King Henry VI: A Tragedy'' also adapted scenes from ''3 Henry VI''. Another adaptation followed in 1817, J.H. Merivale's ''Richard Duke of York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster'', which used material from all three ''Henry VI'' plays, but removed everything not directly related to York. The earliest known production of the Shakespearean ''3 Henry VI'' was on 4 May 1906 at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, directed by F.R. Benson.
:''Evidence'': in '' Groatsworth of Wit'', Robert Greene writes about "an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide', supposes that he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being an absolute '' Johannes fac totum'', is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country." Obviously directed at Shakespeare, this is a reference to a line in ''3 Henry VI'', when York refers to Margaret as a "tiger's heart wrapped in woman's hide" (1.4.137). As ''Groatsworth'' was registered in the Stationers' Register on 20 September 1592, this means that ''True Tragedy'' must have been on stage prior to 23 June 1592, as that was when the government shut the London theatres due to an outbreak of plague. To have been on stage by June 1592, the play was most likely written sometime in 1591.

''

Henry VI, Part 1'' (1591–1592)

:''First official record'': possibly in Philip Henslowe's diary. On 3 March 1592, Henslowe reports seeing a "ne" play called "Harey the vj" (i.e. ''Henry VI''), which could be a reference to ''1 Henry VI'', although this is not universally accepted. An entry found in the Stationers' Register on 19 April 1602 transferring the rights from Thomas Millington to Thomas Pavier of "The first and Second parte of Henry VJ" is thought to refer to what we today call ''2 Henry VI'' and ''3 Henry VI'', not ''1 Henry VI''. The first definite record of the play was not until the ''First Folio'' in 1623.
:''First published'': ''First Folio'' (1623), as ''The first Part of Henry the Sixt''.
:''First recorded performance'': possibly on 3 March 1592 at The Rose, as seen by Philip Henslowe. The earliest definite performance was on 13 March 1738 at Covent Garden.
:''Additional information (attribution)'': many critics consider ''1 Henry VI'' to have been written as a prequel to the successful two-part play, ''The Contention'' and ''True Tragedy''. Possibly co-written with Thomas Nashe and/or other unidentified dramatists.
:''Evidence'': on 3 March 1592, Philip Henslowe saw a new play called "Harey the vj" at The Rose, but he gives no further information. In August, Thomas Nashe published '' Pierce Penniless, His Supplication to the Divell'', in which he refers to a play he had recently seen featuring a rousing depiction of Lord Talbot, a major character in ''1 Henry VI''. Most critics take Nashe's reference to Talbot as supportive of the fact that the play Henslowe saw was ''1 Henry VI''. If, then, it was a new play in March 1592, and if we also assume that it was a prequel written after the other two plays in the trilogy, the play was most likely written in 1591 or very early 1592.

''

Titus Andronicus'' (1591–1592)

:''First official record'': Philip Henslowe's diary, 24 January 1594, where he records seeing the play "titus & ondronicus" at The Rose.
:''First published'': published in quarto in February 1594 as ''The Most Lamentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus Andronicus'', the first known printing of a Shakespearean play (printed by John Danter for Edward White and Thomas Millington). The play was republished in 1600 (printed by James Roberts for White) and 1611 (printed by Edward Allde for White). The ''Folio'' text appears under the title ''The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus Andronicus''.
:''First recorded performance'': on 24 January 1594 performed by Sussex's Men at The Rose, as recorded in Henslowe's diary.
:''Additional information (attribution)'': ''Titus'' is most likely a collaboration between Shakespeare and at least one other dramatist, probably George Peele.
:''Evidence'': E.A.J. Honigmann dates the play 1586, arguing it to be Shakespeare's first piece, written several years prior to his arrival in London. In his 1994 edition of the play for the New Cambridge Shakespeare, Alan Hughes makes a similar argument, suggesting a date of 1588. Most scholars, however, tend to favour a post-1590 date, although there is by no means a consensus amongst them as to what that date may be. In his introduction to the 2001 edition of the play for the New Penguin Shakespeare (edited by Sonia Massai), Jacques Berthoud argues for a date of 1591; in his 1984 edition for the Oxford Shakespeare, Eugene M. Waith argues for a date of 1592; in his 1995 edition for the Arden Shakespeare, Jonathan Bate argues for a date of 1593. What is known is that the play is unlikely to have been written later than June 1592, as that was when the London theatres were closed due to an outbreak of plague. Additionally, stylistic analysis has shown that ''Titus'' belongs to Shakespeare's pre-plague group of plays. If it is assumed that the ''Henry VI'' trilogy was complete by March 1592 at the latest, it would suggest ''Titus'' was composed either immediately afterwards, or perhaps simultaneously as he was completing them, suggesting a date of late 1591/early 1592.

''

Richard III'' (1592–1593)

:''First official record'': version of the play entered into the Stationers' Register by Andrew Wise on 20 October 1597 as "The tragedie of kinge Richard the Third w the death of the duke of Clarence."
:''First published'': version of the play published in quarto in December 1597 as ''The tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, his treacherous plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther of his innocent nephewes: his tyrannicall usurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death'' (printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise). This text was republished in 1598 (by Thomas Creede for Wise), 1603 (again by Creede for Wise), 1605 (by Creede for Matthew Lawe), 1612 (again by Creede for Lawe) and 1622 (by Thomas Purfoot for Lawe). The ''Folio'' text appears under the title ''The Tragedy of Richard the Third, with the Landing of Earle Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field''.
:''Additional information (publication)'': because the 1597 quarto is of such good quality, without the obvious errors common to the 'original' bad quartos, as designated by Alfred W. Pollard (the 1597 ''Romeo and Juliet'', the 1602 ''The Merry Wives of Windsor'', the 1600 ''Henry V'' and the 1603 ''Hamlet''), scholars are undecided as to the exact relationship between the quarto and the 1623 folio texts. If Q1 is a bad quarto, it is an uncommonly "good" bad quarto. It is thought that F1 was set from Q3 (the 1605 text), Q6 (the 1622 text) and the author's foul papers, and, as a result, Q1 and F1 differ from one another substantially. Most significantly, F1 contains roughly 230 lines not in Q1, Q1 contains roughly 40 lines not in F1, there are over 2000 textual differences, some scenes are arranged differently (including the order of the entry of the ghosts in 5.4), and Q1 has fewer characters than F1. There are two main theories: the quarto is a reported text, reconstructed from memory based on a performance of the play; the quarto is a performance text, a refined version of the longer folio text written by Shakespeare himself after the play had been staged. No real consensus has been reached on this issue.
:''First recorded performance'': the play was performed extensively in Shakespeare's lifetime, and evidence would seem to suggest it was one of his most popular plays; it is mentioned in ''Palladis Tamia'' in 1598 (as "''Richard the'' 3."), and by the time of the ''First Folio'' in 1623, had been published in quarto six times, and referenced by multiple writers of the day. Regarding specific performances however, there is little solid evidence. In 1602, John Manningham mentions seeing Richard Burbage playing the role of Richard, probably at the Globe, where his performance so impressed a female member of the audience that she asked him to visit her later that night in the guise of Richard. The earliest definite performance was at St James's Palace on 16 or 17 November 1633 by the King's Men.
:''Evidence'': it is known that ''Richard III'' was definitely a sequel to ''True Tragedy'', which was on stage by 23 June 1592, hence ''Richard III'' must have been written roughly around the same period. A common argument regarding Shakespeare's chronology at this point in his career is that ''Richard III'' is a significantly better play than any of the ''Henry VI'' plays, with a much tighter structure, a more mature manner and a greater degree of stylistic control. This dramatic improvement in his writing is attributed to his absorbing the lessons of Senecan tragedy when composing ''Titus'', which he was then able to incorporate into ''Richard''. Additionally, in his 2000 edition of the play for the Oxford Shakespeare, John Jowett argues that the play may originally have been written for Lord Strange's Men, but Shakespeare added some new material after it had passed to Pembroke's Men, a company which formed in mid-1592 and disbanded in September 1593. The patron of Strange's Men was Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, a direct descent of Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, a major character in the play. However Shakespeare altered much of his source material (Sir Thomas More's ''History of King Richard III'') regarding this character, presenting him as far more heroic and honourable than does More. For example, Shakespeare has Thomas lead a battalion against Richard at the Battle of Bosworth Field, when it was in fact his brother William who led them. This suggests Shakespeare was writing with Ferdinando in mind, knowingly praising the ancestor of the company's patron. However, the play also takes the time to praise the ancestors of the patron of Pembroke's Men, Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Prior to the Battle of Bosworth, a list of names of lords who have joined Richmond's cause is read aloud, two of whom are "Sir Walter Herbert, a renown'd soldier" (4.5.9) and "redoubted Pembroke" (4.5.11). This passage is completely extraneous to the rest of the plot, is almost always cut in performance and has been argued to be an addition to the original composition. Pembroke is later mentioned by Richmond, who asks for him to be sent to his tent to consult on the eve of battle (5.4.5–8), a request never mentioned again. Additionally, in Q1, Richmond is flanked by "three lords" in 5.2, but in F1, the lords are all named, one of whom is the previously mentioned Walter Herbert. Both the request for Pembroke, which is subsequently forgotten, and the change of the anonymous lord to a specific historical individual suggest addition after initial composition. Jowett argues that coupled with the narratively vital praise of Stanley's ancestor, the less integrated references to Herbert and Pembroke create something of a hypothetical internal chronology of composition in which Shakespeare initially writes the play for Strange's Men, but, perhaps due to the closing of the theatres in June 1592, the play passes to Pembroke's Men for a regional tour, at which point he adds the lines praising the ancestors of the new company in whose hands the play has now found itself.

''

Edward III'' (1592–1593)

:''First official record'': entered into the Stationers' Register by Cuthbert Burby on 1 December 1595 as "a booke intituled Edward the Third and the blacke prince their warres w kinge Iohn of Fraunce."
:''First published'': published in quarto in 1596 as ''The Raigne Of King Edvvard the third'' (printed anonymously for Burby). This text was republished in 1599 (printed by Simon Stafford for Burby).
:''First recorded performance'': although it is known from the 1596 quarto title page that the play had been performed in London during the 1590s, the earliest recorded performance was not until 6 March 1911 at the Little Theatre, directed by Gertrude Kingston and William Poel. However, this production presented only the first half of the play (dealing with the Edward's infatuation with the Countess of Salisbury). Performed under the title, ''The King and the Countess'', it was presented in a single matinée performance with the anonymous sixteenth century liturgical drama, ''Jacob and Esau''. The first known performance of the complete text took place in June 1986 at the Globe Playhouse in Los Angeles, directed by Dick Dotterer, as part of the Shakespeare Society of America's presentation of the entire 'canon' of Shakespeare Apocrypha. The first known production of the play in the United Kingdom was in July 1987, at the Theatr Clwyd, directed by Toby Robertson.
:''Additional information (attribution)'': first attributed to Shakespeare by the booksellers Richard Rogers and William Ley in 1656, Shakespeare's possible authorship of the play was first investigated by Edward Capell in 1760. Although the question of authorship remains unresolved, many scholars do now agree that Shakespeare was involved in some way with writing the play, and that it deserves a place in the Shakespearean canon. Specifically, the argument has been made that if ''1 Henry VI'' can be attributed to Shakespeare so too can ''Edward III'', as some scholars argue that Shakespeare only wrote about 20% of ''1 Henry VI'', whereas estimates for ''Edward III'' tend to range from 40% to all of it. The play was included in the 2nd edition of the ''Riverside Shakespeare'' in 1996. In 1998, Giorgio Melchiori edited the first stand-alone scholarly edition of the play, for the New Cambridge Shakespeare. The play was also included in the 2nd edition of ''The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works'' in 2005, edited by William Montgomery, and in the 2nd edition of the ''Norton Shakespeare'' in 2008. The Arden Shakespeare published an edition of the play in 2017, edited by Richard Proudfoot and Nicola Bennett.
:''Evidence'': ''Edward III'' has been assigned many different possible dates of composition by a number of scholars. For example, Karl P. Wentersdorf favours a date of 1589–1590. MacDonald P. Jackson argues for 1590–1591. Roger Prior argues for a date of 1594. Obviously, the play was written by December 1595. A ''terminus post quem'' of 1590 can be fixed by Shakespeare's use of several post-1590 accounts of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. According to the title page of the 1596 quarto, the play had been performed recently in London, but no company information is provided. However, both MacDonald P. Jackson and Richard Proudfoot have argued that ''Edward III'' must have been part of the repertory of Pembroke's Men. This would explain the absence of an acting company on the title page; the company that performed the play had disbanded during the closure of the theatres from June 1592 to March 1594 (Pembroke's Men disbanded in September 1593). Giorgio Melchiori believes the connection to Pembroke's Men can help date the play. All of the Shakespearean plays performed by Pembroke's Men are pre-plague; ''Taming of the Shrew'', ''The Contention'', ''True Tragedy'', ''Titus'' and ''Richard III''. These plays all feature relatively large casts, with an emphasis on platforms, at least two doors and an upper stage. ''Edward III'', however, needs only ten adult actors and one boy (the most cast intensive scene is 5.1). Battle scenes are also muted, especially when compared to ''True Tragedy'' or ''Richard III'', and the siege scene (4.2) requires no doors or upper stage. The conclusion reached by Melchiori regarding this evidence is that the writer(s) of the play were unsure where it was going to be staged, and therefore wrote it in such a way that it could be adequately staged by a small company performing on a basic stage. This would suggest it was written during the closure of the theatres, which places the date of composition sometime between mid-1592 and late 1593.

''

The Comedy of Errors'' (1594)

:''First official record'': Francis Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'' (1598), referred to as "''Errors''."
:''First published'': ''First Folio'' (1623).
:''First recorded performance'': probably on Innocents Day, 28 December 1594, at Gray's Inn (one of the four London Inns of Court). The only known evidence for this performance is the ''Gesta Grayorum'', a 1688 text printed for William Canning based on a manuscript apparently handed down from the 1590s, detailing the " Prince of Purpoole" festival from December 1594 to February 1595. According to the text, after a disastrous attempt to stage "some notable performance ��it was thought good not to offer any thing of Account, saving Dancing and Revelling with Gentlewomen; and after such Sports, a Comedy of Errors (like to ''Plautus'' his ''Menaechmus'') was played by the Players. So that Night was begun, and continued to the end, in nothing but Confusion and Errors; whereupon, it was ever afterwards called, ''The Night of Errors''." As ''Comedy of Errors'' is indeed based on ''Menaechmus'', this is almost universally accepted as a reference to a performance of the play, probably by Shakespeare's own company, the newly formed Lord Chamberlain's Men. The earliest known definite performance was at court on 28 December 1604.
:''Evidence'': traditionally, ''Errors'' has been dated quite early, and has often been seen as Shakespeare's first comedy, perhaps his first play. However, stylistic and linguistic analysis (proportion of verse to prose, amount of rhyme, use of colloquialism-in-verse, and a rare word test) has placed it closer to the composition of ''Richard II'' and ''Romeo and Juliet'', both of which were written in 1594 or 1595. More specifically, the limited setting (it is one of only two Shakespeare plays to observe the Classical unities) and the brevity of the play (Shakespeare's shortest at 1777 lines), along with the great abundance of legal terminology, suggests the play may have been written specifically for the Gray's Inn performance. This would place its composition in the latter half of 1594.

''

Love's Labour's Lost'' (1594–1595)

:''First official record'': the play was published in quarto in 1598, although the exact date is unknown, as it was not entered into the Stationers' Register at the time. Also in 1598, Robert Tofte mentioned the play in his sonnet sequence ''Alba. The months minde of a melancholy lover''; "''Love's Labour Lost'', I once did see, a play/Y'cleped so, so called to my pain." The date of publication of ''Alba'' is unknown as it also was not entered into the Register. Additionally, the play is mentioned in Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'' (registered on 7 September, with a dedication dated 10 October). It is unknown exactly which one of these three constitutes the first official record of the play.
:''First published'': published in quarto in 1598 as ''A Pleasant Conceited Comedie called Loues labors lost'', the first known printing of a Shakespearean play to include his name on the title page (printed by William Wright for Cuthbert Burby). However, due to the note "Newly corrected and augmented," it is known that a previous publication must have existed, which has apparently been lost.
:''First recorded performance'': according to the quarto title page, the play was performed at court for Queen Elizabeth sometime over Christmas 1597, but no further information is provided. The earliest definite performance took place sometime between 8 and 15 January 1605, for Anne of Denmark, at either Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton or Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury's house.
:''Evidence'': obviously, the play was written by Christmas 1597, but narrowing the date further has proved difficult, with most efforts focusing upon stylistic evidence. Traditionally, it was seen as one of Shakespeare's earliest plays. For example, Charles Gildon wrote in 1710; "since it is one of the worst of ''Shakespeare''s Plays, nay I think I may say the very worst, I cannot but think that it is his first." For much of the eighteenth century, it tended to be dated to 1590, until Edmond Malone's newly constructed chronology in 1778, which dated it 1594. In his 1930 chronology, E.K. Chambers found the play to be slightly more sophisticated than Malone had allowed for, and dated it 1595. Today most scholars tend to concur with a date of 1594–1595, and the play is often grouped with the 'lyrical plays'; ''Richard II'', ''Romeo and Juliet'' and ''A Midsummer Night's Dream'', because of its prolific use of rhyming. These four plays are argued to represent a phase of Shakespeare's career when he was experimenting with rhyming iambic pentameter as an alternative form to standard blank verse; ''Richard II'' has more rhymed verse than any other history play (19.1%), ''Romeo and Juliet'' more than any other tragedy (16.6%) and ''Love's Labour's'' and ''Midsummer Night'' more than any other comedy (43.1% and 45.5% respectively). All four tend to be dated to the period 1594–1595. In support of this, Ants Oras' pause test places the play after ''Richard III'', which is usually dated 1592. Furthermore, Gary Taylor finds possible allusions to the Gray's Inn revels of December 1594 (specifically the Muscovite masque in 5.2), and also finds plausible Geoffrey Bullough's argument that the satirical presentation of the King of Navarre (loosely based on Henry of Navarre, who was associated with oath breaking after abjuring Protestantism in 1593) favours a date after December 1594, when Henry survived an assassination attempt by Jean Châtel. All of this suggests a date of late 1594 to early 1595.

''

Love's Labour's Won'' (1595–1596)

:''First official record'': Francis Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'' (1598), referred to as "''Love labours wonne''."
:''First published'': prior to 1603; format and exact date unknown.
:''First recorded performance'': there are no recorded performances of the play, but the fact that it is mentioned in ''Palladis Tamia'' strongly suggests it was performed.
:''Additional information (existence)'': there are only two known references to this play. One is in Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'', the other is a fragment of Christopher Hunt's inventory, listing sixteen "ludes and tragedyes" sold from 9 to 17 August 1603. The list includes four Shakespearean plays; ''The Merchant of Venice'', ''The Taming of a Shrew'', ''Love's Labour's Lost'', and ''Love's Labour's Won''. Up until 1953, only Meres' reference was known, until Hunt's two pages of handwriting were discovered in the backing of a copy of Thomas Gataker's ''Certaine Sermones''. The discovery was handed over to T.W. Baldwin, who published his findings in 1957 in ''Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Won''. Baldwin argues that the title of the play suggests it was a sequel to ''Love's Labour's Lost'', which is partially supported by the unusually open-ended nature of that play (the main characters all vow to meet again in a year's time). But whether the play ever existed has been debated, with some critics speculating that it is simply another name for one of Shakespeare's known plays, a situation similar to ''Henry VIII'', which was originally performed with the title ''All is True''. As Meres refers to ''The Two Gentlemen of Verona'', ''The Comedy of Errors'' and ''The Merchant of Venice'', prior to the discovery of the Hunt reference, a common suggestion was ''The Taming of the Shrew'', but as Hunt mentions this play, it could not be ''Love's Labour's Won''. ''Much Ado About Nothing'', ''As You Like It'', ''Troilus and Cressida'' and ''All's Well That Ends Well'' have also been cited as possibilities, with ''All's Well'' the most favoured. But these plays all tend to be dated later than 1598 (although the argument is that ''Love's Labour's Won'' is an early draft). As there are no other pre-1598 Shakespearean comedies with which to equate it, it seems certain that the play did exist, that it was performed and published, but that it has since been lost.
:''Evidence'': the play's position in the chronology is based purely on the speculation that it was a sequel to ''Love's Labour's Lost''.

''

Richard II'' (1595)

:''First official record'': entered into the Stationers' Register by Andrew Wise on 29 August 1597 as "the Tragedye of Richard the Second."
:''First published'': published in quarto in 1597 as ''The Tragedie of King Richard the second'' (printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise). This text was republished twice in 1598 (on both occasions by Simmes for Wise), 1608 (by William Wright for Matthew Lawe) and 1615 (again by Wright for Lawe). The ''Folio'' text appears under the title ''The life and death of King Richard the Second''.
:''First recorded performance'': possible performance on 9 December 1595 at Sir Edward Hoby's house. On that date, Hoby's wife, Margaret Carey, daughter of Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon (chief patron of the Lord Chamberlain's Men), wrote a letter to Robert Cecil inviting him to supper and to see "K. Richard present him self to your vewe." This could be a reference to a private performance of ''Richard II'', especially because of the Hunsdon connection with Shakespeare's company. However, some scholars argue that "K. Richard" could be a painting, not a play, whilst others argue there is no evidence that even if it is a play, it necessarily refers to ''Richard II'', suggesting it could refer to ''Richard III'' or to another play entirely. There is no complete consensus on this issue, although most scholars do tend to favour the ''Richard II'' theory. The earliest definite performance was at the Globe on 7 February 1601, organised by Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. This performance was probably intended to inspire his supporters on the eve of his armed rebellion against Queen Elizabeth.
:''Evidence'': ''Richard II'' is usually seen as one of the 'lyrical plays', along with ''Love's Labour's Lost'', ''Romeo and Juliet'' and ''A Midsummer Night's Dream''; four plays in which Shakespeare used rhymed iambic pentameter more than anywhere else in his career. The four plays also include elaborate punning, rhetorical patterning, a general avoidance of colloquialisms and a high volume of metrical regularity. All four of these plays tend to be dated to 1594–1595. Also important in dating the play is Samuel Daniel's ''The First Four Books of the Civil Wars'', which was entered into the Stationers' Register on 11 October 1594, and published in early 1595. Although some scholars have suggested that Daniel used Shakespeare as a source, which would mean the play was written somewhat earlier than 1594, most agree that Shakespeare used Daniel, especially in some of the later scenes, meaning the play could not have been written earlier than 1595. Recent analysis of an extant early manuscript of Daniel's poem, however, suggests that Shakespeare could have used such a manuscript as a source, making an earlier date possible.

''

Romeo and Juliet'' (1595)

:''First official record'': version of the play published in quarto in 1597. The play was not entered into the Stationers' Register at the time, not appearing until 22 July 1607.
:''First published'': version of the play published in quarto in 1597 as ''An excellent conceited tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet'' (printed by John Danter for Cuthbert Burby). A revised version, "newly corrected, augmented and amended," was published in 1599 as ''The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet'' (printed by Thomas Creede for Burby). This text was republished in 1609 (by John Windet for John Smethwick) and 1622 (by William Stansby for Smethwick). The ''Folio'' text appears under the title ''The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet''.
:''Additional information (publication)'': the 1597 quarto text has traditionally been considered a bad quarto, and was one of the original texts in relation to which Alfred W. Pollard coined the term. However, in his 2007 edition of the quarto text for the New Cambridge Shakespeare: The Early Quartos series, Lukas Erne argues that although the text does exhibit many signs of memorial reconstruction, there is also evidence of authorial revision, and he believes the Q1 text is a closer representation of the play as it would have been performed at the time than either the longer Q2 or the 1623 ''Folio'' text (which was set from Q2).
:''First recorded performance'': 1 March 1662 at Lincoln's Inn Fields, performed by the Duke's Company. Samuel Pepys wrote of the production (the first since the reopening of the theatres), "it is the play of itself the worst that ever I heard in my life, and the worst acted that ever I saw these people do."
:''Evidence'': as there is virtually no external evidence (other than the quarto text which establishes 1597 as a ''terminus ante quem'') with which to date the play, most arguments tend to centre on references within the play to topical events, publication dates of Shakespeare's influences, and stylistic evidence. A much discussed possible topical allusion is the Nurse's reference to an earthquake which took place eleven years previously (1.3.24-36). The specificity of this reference has led many scholars to argue that Shakespeare must have been referring to a real earthquake. Originally, Thomas Tyrwhitt suggested the 1580 Dover Straits earthquake, which would place the composition of the play in 1591. Sidney Thomas, on the other hand, argues it may refer to a quake on 1 March 1584, mentioned in William Covell's ''Polimanteia'', which was published in 1595 and with which Shakespeare was apparently familiar. This would suggest a date of composition of 1595. Influences on the play include Samuel Daniel's ''Complaint of Rosamund'' (1592) and John Eliot's ''Ortho-epia Gallica'' (1593), suggesting the play could not have been composed earlier than 1593. A colloquialism-in-verse test places it closest to ''Richard II'', Ants Oras' pause test places it immediately after ''Love's Labour's Lost'' and immediately prior to ''A Midsummer Night's Dream'', and a rare word test links it most closely to ''Love's Labour's Lost''. Stylistically, the play is also firmly situated within the 'lyrical plays', which are all dated 1594–1595. This would correspond to the 1584 earthquake (assuming Shakespeare had in mind a particular quake at all), and suggest a main composition date of 1595. However, in her 2000 edition of the play for the Oxford Shakespeare, Jill L. Levenson argues that the play was most likely composed over several years, possibly covering a span as wide as 1593–1599.

''

A Midsummer Night's Dream'' (1595)

:''First official record'': Francis Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'' (1598); referred to as "''Midsummers night dreame''."
:''First published'': published in November or December 1600 as ''A Midsommer nights dreame'' (printed by Richard Bradock for Thomas Fisher). This text was republished in 1619, with a title page date of 1600 and the name of the printer James Roberts. However, this reprint was part of William Jaggard's "False Folio" (printed by Thomas Pavier). The play had never been printed by Roberts.
:''First recorded performance'': 1 January 1605 at court, when Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount Dorchester reported to John Chamberlain the acting of a masque "of Robin goode-fellow." The first definite performance took place on 29 September 1662 at Drury Lane, as reported by Samuel Pepys, who described it as "the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life."
:''Evidence'': stylistically, ''Midsummer Night'' is very much part of the 'lyrical plays', which would suggest a date of composition in 1594 or 1595. A strong argument that it was written immediately after ''Romeo and Juliet'' is the nature of ''Pyramus and Thisbe'', which features a pair of ill-fated lovers who arrange to meet in secret and which ends with the heroine killing herself over the body of her dead love. In his 1979 edition of the play for the second series of the Arden Shakespeare, Harold F. Brooks argues that Shakespeare used the source story from Ovid's ''Metamorphoses'' first to examine the tragic potential and then to exploit its comic and farcical elements in his next play. A possible topical allusion is the line "the death/Of learning, late decreased in beggary" (5.1.52–53), which could refer to the spate of deaths of popular playwrights in the early 1590s; Robert Greene in 1592, Christopher Marlowe in 1593 and Thomas Kyd in 1594. That the play culminates with the marriage of Theseus and Hippolyta has led some to theorise it may have been written specifically for a wedding, with the most likely candidates being either the marriage of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, and Elizabeth de Vere on 26 January 1595, or that of Sir Thomas Berkeley and Elizabeth Carey on 19 February 1596. That the second is the more likely of the two is due to the fact that Elizabeth's grandfather was Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, and her father was George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon, successive patrons of the Lord Chamberlain's Men. If the play was written for a wedding in February 1596, it was most likely composed in 1595. However, there is no solid evidence to suggest that the play was in fact written for a wedding, and most scholars are in agreement that stylistic evidence alone is sufficient to date the play to ''c.''1595.

'' King John'' (1596)

:''First official record'': Francis Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'' (1598), referred to as "''King Iohn''."
:''First published'': ''First Folio'' (1623), as ''The life and death of King Iohn''.
:''First recorded performance'': although numerous references to the play throughout the seventeenth century indicate that it was performed with some frequency and success, there is no definite record of any specific performance. The first documented performance was on 26 February 1737, produced by John Rich at Drury Lane.
:''Evidence'': ''King John'' can be a difficult play to date due to the lack of any real external evidence or internal topical allusions. Scholars have instead been forced to rely on stylistic evidence, and speculation regarding the play's relationship with the anonymous two-part play ''The Troublesome Reign of King John'' (''c.''1589), which was published in 1611 and 1622 under Shakespeare's name. ''King John'' was obviously in existence by 1598, as it is mentioned in ''Palladis Tamia'', and most scholars agree that Shakespeare used ''Troublesome Reign'' as a source, meaning it must have been written after 1589. In his 1954 edition of the play for the second series of the Arden Shakespeare, however, E.A.J. Honigmann argues that ''Troublesome Reign'' is actually an adaptation of Shakespeare's ''King John'' based on the recollections of a performance, and hence ''King John'' was written prior to 1589. Although most scholars disagree with Honigmann on this point, the exact nature of the relationship between the two plays remains open to question. Stylistic evidence serves to locate the play in the mid-1590s. Both a rare word test and Ants Oras' pause test place it after ''Richard II''. A colloquialism-in-verse test places it prior to the two ''Henry IV'' plays. All three of these plays were definitely written during the 1590s, suggesting ''King John'' must also have been written in that decade. Furthermore, Barron Brainerd's statistical analysis of Shakespeare's plays places ''King John'' just past the mid-way point of the decade, after ''Richard II'' and prior to ''Henry IV, Part 1''.

''

The Merchant of Venice'' (1596–1597)

:''First official record'': entered into the Stationers' Register by James Roberts on 22 July 1598 as "a booke of the Marchaunt of Venyce or otherwise called the Iewe of Venyce."
:''First published'': published in quarto in 1600 as ''The Excellent History of the Merchant of Venice. With the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the Jewe towards the sayd merchant, in cutting a just pound of his flesh: and the obtayning of Portia by the choyse of three chests'' (printed by James Roberts for Thomas Heyes). This text was republished in 1619, with a title page date of 1600 and the name of the printer James Roberts. This reprint was part of William Jaggard's "False Folio" (printed by Thomas Pavier).
:''First recorded performance'': although the title page of the 1600 quarto indicates the play was performed in the latter years of the sixteenth century, the earliest recorded performance was by the King's Men at Whitehall Palace for King James on 10 February 1605. James liked the play so much that he asked for it to be performed again two days later, on Shrove Tuesday.
:''Evidence'': the play was obviously in existence by 1598. But other evidence places its date of composition as probably 1596 or very early 1597. An important topical allusion is Salarino's reference to "my wealthy ''Andrew'' docked in sand" (1.1.28). This is thought to refer to the ''San Andrés'', a Spanish galleon that ran aground in Cádiz in June 1596 after a surprise attack under the command of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. The ship was subsequently captured, renamed the ''St. Andrew'' and incorporated into the Royal Navy. But she remained in the news throughout 1596. Upon arriving in England, she nearly ran aground on the Thames Estuary. In August, she served as a troopship during the Islands Voyage, and upon returning to a stormy England in October, Essex refused to allow her to sail past the Goodwin Sands, a location also referred to by Salarino (3.1.4–5). All of this suggests the play was written in the latter half of 1596 or very early 1597, when audiences would have been most perceptive to the ''Andrew'' reference. It has also been theorised that the play may have been written to capitalise on the enormous success of Christopher Marlowe's ''The Jew of Malta''. Although ''Malta'' had been written in 1589 or 1590, it remained extremely popular throughout the 90s, and was revived on stage in 1596 when it was performed eight times by the Lord Admiral's Men.

''

Henry IV, Part 1'' (1596–1597)

:''First official record'': entered into the Stationers' Register by Andrew Wise on 25 February 1598 as "a booke intituled The historye of Henry the IIIJ with his battaile of Shrewsburye against Henry Hottspurre of the Northe with The conceited mirthe of Sir John Ffalstoff."
:''First published'': two quarto texts were published in 1598. Only a fragment of one (designated Q0) has survived, running from 1.3.201-2.2.105. The other copy (Q1) was published under the title ''The History of Henrie the Fourth, with the battell at Shrewsburie between the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Hotspur of the North, with the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe'' (printed by Peter Short for Andrew Wise). This text was republished in 1599 (by Simon Stafford for Wise), 1604 (by Valentine Simmes for Matthew Lawe), 1608 (by John Windet for Lawe), 1613 (by William White for Lawe) and 1622 (by Thomas Purfoot for Lawe). The ''Folio'' text appears under the title ''The First Part of Henry the Fourth, with the Life and Death of Henry Sirnamed Hot-spurre''.
:''First recorded performance'': possibly on 6 March 1600 at the house of George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon for the Flemish ambassador. In a letter dated 8 March from Rowland Whyte to Robert Sidney, 1st Earl of Leicester, Whyte mentions that Hunsdon employed the Lord Chamberlain's Men to perform a play called "''Sir John Old Castlle''." Originally, Falstaff was called Sir John Oldcastle, but Shakespeare was pressured into changing the name. Although "''Sir John Old Castlle''" could be a reference to ''Sir John Oldcastle'' by Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Richard Hathwaye and Robert Wilson, the fact that Hunsdon was using Shakespeare's own company, rather than the rival Lord Admiral's Men, suggests the play referred to was in fact ''1 Henry IV''. Another possible performance took place on or around 14 February 1613, when either ''1 Henry IV'' or '' Henry IV, Part 2'' (or both) were performed at court as part of the celebrations for the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to Frederick V, Elector Palatine. A play performed under the title ''The Hotspur'' is thought to refer to ''1 Henry IV''. The first definite performance was on 1 January 1625 at Whitehall as ''The First Part of Sir John Falstaff''.
:''Evidence'': as with ''Richard II'', the play uses Samuel Daniel's ''The First Four Books of the Civil Wars'' as a source, meaning it could not have been written earlier than 1595. The fact that it is a direct sequel to ''Richard II'' would further limit the date of composition to no later than 1597 as Shakespeare would not have wanted to wait too long to capitalise on the success of the previous play. The controversy regarding the Oldcastle character also helps date the play. Shakespeare was pressured into changing the name by the descendants of the historical Sir John Oldcastle, particularly William Brooke, 10th Baron Cobham and his son Henry. William served as Lord Chamberlain from August 1596 to March 1597, and only in that period would he have had the authority to demand the alteration of a play which he found objectionable. This could indicate an initial performance in late 1596 or early 1597, suggesting composition took place roughly around the same time.

''

The Merry Wives of Windsor'' (1597)

:''First official record'': entered into the Stationers' Register by John Busby on 18 January 1602 as "A booke called An excellent and pleasant conceited commedie of Sir John Faulstof and the merry wyves of Windesor."
:''First published'': version of the play published in quarto in 1602 as ''A most pleasaunt and excellent conceited Comedie, of Syr John Falstaffe, and the merrie Wives of Windsor. Entermixed with sundrie variable and pleasing humours, of Syr Hugh the Welch knight, Justice Shallow, and his wise cousin M. Slender. With the swaggering vaine of Auncient Pistoll, and Corporall Nym'' (printed by Thomas Creede for Arthur Johnson). This text was republished in 1619 as part of William Jaggard's "False Folio" (printed by Thomas Pavier).
:''Additional information (publication)'': the 1602 quarto text has traditionally been considered a bad quarto, and was one of the original texts in relation to which Alfred W. Pollard coined the term. The quarto text is 1620 lines, compared to the 2729 line ''Folio'' text. 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and much of 5.5 are absent from Q1, 3.4 and 3.5 are transposed and numerous speeches within individual scenes are also transposed. In his 1910 edition of the quarto text, W.W. Greg wrote "my own study of ''Merry Wives'' has led me to doubt whether any limit can be set to the possible perversion which a text may suffer at the hands of a reporter." However, more recent editions of the play, such as David Crane's 1997 edition for the New Cambridge Shakespeare and Giorgio Melchiori's 2000 edition for the third series of the Arden Shakespeare, have questioned the likelihood of memorial reconstruction being wholly responsible for the text, arguing for a more complex provenance.
:''First recorded performance'': on 4 November 1604, in the banqueting hall of Whitehall Palace, performed by the King's Men for Charles I.
:''Evidence'': writing in 1702, John Dennis claimed Shakespeare wrote the play in fourteen days at the behest of Queen Elizabeth. In 1709, Nicholas Rowe claimed Elizabeth commissioned Shakespeare to write the play, because she liked the character of Falstaff so much in ''1 Henry IV'' that she wanted to see him in love. Neither claim is given much weight by scholars today. The composition of the play definitely postdates the Oldcastle controversy concerning ''1 Henry IV'', as the character is, and seemingly always was, called Falstaff in ''Merry Wives''. One area examined by scholars in an effort to date the composition of the play is where in the plot of the ''Henriad'' the narrative of ''Merry Wives'' is supposed to take place. ''1 Henry IV'' was definitely written by early 1597. ''Henry V'' was completed by September 1599. ''2 Henry IV'' was written at some point between these two. Exactly where ''Merry Wives'' fits into the sequence is unknown, but attempts to date the composition of the play by locating the plot within the overall ''Henriad'' have proved fruitless. The plot of ''Merry Wives'' does not fit into the plot of the ''Henriad'' in any chronological or logical sense; there are continuity problems no matter where in the sequence one locates the play. For example, Falstaff and Mistress Quickly don't know one another at the start of ''Merry Wives'', whereas in ''1 Henry IV'', they have known one another for over thirty years. John Jowett, editor of the play for the ''Oxford Shakespeare: Complete Works'', argues it is not supposed to fit into the ''Henriad'' at all, it is "essentially an Elizabethan comedy, the only one that Shakespeare set firmly in England. The play is full of details that would have been familiar to Elizabethan Londoners, and the language is colloquial and up to date." Textual evidence and topical allusions led John Leslie Hotson to argue the play was specifically commissioned for a performance on Saint George's Day (23 April) 1597, as part of the celebrations for the Garter Feast (an annual meeting of the Order of the Garter). Hotson believes the play was commissioned for the Feast by George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon, who had recently succeeded his father as patron of Shakespeare's Lord Chamberlain's Men and was to be one of the newly elected knights. Hotson contends the play was his contribution to the festivities. If one accepts this theory, it suggests that Shakespeare interrupted his composition of ''2 Henry IV'' to hastily compose ''Merry Wives'' after Hunsdon's commission. This is important because traditionally, ''Merry Wives'' has been dated ''c.''1600, a date supported by verse analysis. However, verse makes up very little of the play, and if Shakespeare was writing extremely fast, the reliability of the test would be compromised. Scholars who accept the theory that Shakespeare stopped writing ''2 Henry IV'' to write ''Merry Wives'' theorise that he did so somewhere between 3.2 and 4.2.

'' Henry IV, Part 2'' (1597–1598)

:''First official record'': entered into the Stationers' Register by Andrew Wise and William Aspley on 23 August 1600 as "the seconde parte of the history of Kinge Henry the iiij with the humours of Sir Iohn Ffallstaff." Jointly entered with ''Much Ado About Nothing''.
:''First published'': published in quarto in 1600 as ''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'' (printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise and William Aspley) The 1623 ''Folio'' text appears under the title ''The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, Containing his Death: and the Coronation of King Henry the Fift''.
:''First recorded performance'': probable performance took place on or around 14 February 1613, when either ''1 Henry IV'' or ''2 Henry IV'' (or both) were performed at court as part of the celebrations for the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to Frederick V, Elector Palatine. A play performed under the title ''Sir Iohn Falstaffe'' is thought to refer to ''2 Henry IV''. It is unlikely to refer to ''1 Henry IV'' as a play under the name ''The Hotspur'' would seem to indicate that play. Additionally, a list of plays under consideration for court performance in 1620, compiled by George Buck, Master of the Revels, mentions the "Second part of Falstaffe not plaid theis 7. yeres." This would seem to confirm the 1613 performance as ''2 Henry IV'', as, due to the lack of republication of the initial 1600 quarto text, it is known that ''2 Henry IV'' was not nearly as popular as ''1 Henry IV'' (which was republished five times prior to 1623).
:''Evidence'': as a sequel to ''1 Henry IV'' and a prequel to ''Henry V'', the play was obviously written at some point between the two. We know that ''1 Henry IV'' was probably written by early 1597 at the latest, and that ''Henry V'' was written by September 1599, so ''2 Henry IV'' can be dated from early 1597 to September 1599. There is some tentative evidence to narrow the date further, however. For example, the fact that Falstaff seems to have been called Falstaff from the very inception of ''2 Henry IV'' would suggest the play was written after the censoring of ''1 Henry IV'' in 1596/1597. The fact that the 25 February 1598 Stationers' Register entry for ''1 Henry IV'' does not identity it as the first part of a two-part play has led some scholars to speculate that ''2 Henry IV'' could not have been completed by that date. There is also a reference to the character of Justice Shallow in Ben Jonson's ''Every Man out of His Humour'', which was first acted in 1599, indicating the play was well enough known by then for an audience to understand the allusion. All of this seems to place the date of composition as somewhere in late 1597/early 1598.

''

Much Ado About Nothing'' (1598–1599)

:''First official record'': mentioned in the Stationers' Register on a flyleaf dated 4 August 1600 as "The cōmedie of muche A doo about nothinge." Grouped with ''Henry V'', ''As You Like It'' and Ben Jonson's ''Every Man in His Humour'' under the heading "to be staied." Who wrote the note, the exact nature of the grouping of plays, and the meaning of "to be staied" is unknown, but is thought to have been an attempt by the Lord Chamberlain's Men to prevent unauthorised printing of the plays listed. The play was formally entered into the Register by Andrew Wise and William Aspley on 23 August as "Muche a Doo about nothing." Jointly entered with ''2 Henry IV''.
:''First published'': published in quarto in 1600 as ''Much adoe about Nothing'' (printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise and William Aspley).
:''First recorded performance'': on or around 14 February 1613, when the play was performed at court as part of the celebrations for the marriage of Princess Elzabeth to Frederick V, Elector Palatine.
:''Evidence'': the play is not mentioned in Meres' ''Palladis Tamia'', which tentatively suggests it had not been performed by September 1598. Although it has been suggested that ''Much Ado'' could be ''Love's Labour's Won'', the discovery of the list written by Christopher Hunt in 1603 refutes this possibility, as Hunt mentions ''Love's Labour's Won'' three years after ''Much Ado'' had been published under its own name. Furthermore, the quarto text includes the name "Kempe" as a speech heading throughout 4.2. This is universally recognised as referring to William Kempe, the leading comic actor of the Lord Chamberlain's Men, with the inference being that the role of Dogberry was specifically written for him. However, Kempe left the Lord Chamberlain's Men sometime in early 1599, suggesting the play must have been written before then. This suggests a date of composition in late 1598 and/or early 1599.

''

Henry V'' (1599)

:''First official record'': mentioned in the Stationers' Register on a flyleaf dated 4 August 1600 as "Henry the ffift." Grouped with ''Much Ado About Nothing'', ''As You Like It'' and Ben Jonson's ''Every Man in His Humour'' under the heading "to be staied." Who wrote the note, the exact nature of the grouping of plays, and the meaning of "to be staied" is unknown, but is thought to have been an attempt by the Lord Chamberlain's Men to prevent unauthorised printing of the plays listed. ''Henry V'' was formally entered into the Register by Thomas Pavier on 14 August as "The historye of Henrye the v w the battell of Agencourt."
:''First published'': version of the play published in quarto in 1600 as ''The cronicle history of Henry the fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll'' (printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington and John Busby). This text was republished in 1602 (by Creede for Thomas Pavier) and 1619, as part of William Jaggard's "False Folio" (printed by Pavier). The 1619 text is falsely dated 1608. The 1623 ''First Folio'' text appears under the title ''The Life of Henry the Fift''.
:''Additional information (publication)'': the 1600 quarto text has traditionally been considered a bad quarto, and was one of the original texts in relation to which Alfred W. Pollard coined the term. However, in his 2000 edition of the quarto text for the New Cambridge: The Early Quartos series, Andrew Gurr argues that although the text was partially constructed from memory, it also represents a performance text, an abridged version of the ''Folio'' text constructed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men specifically for performance.
:''First recorded performance'': 7 January 1605 at court, performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men for King James.
:''Evidence'': of all Shakespeare's plays, ''Henry V'' is perhaps the easiest to date. A reference by the Chorus to the 1599 Irish expedition of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, (5.0.29–34) means the play was most likely written sometime between 27 March 1599 (when Essex left for Ireland) and 24 September 1599 (when he returned in disgrace).

''

Julius Caesar'' (1599)

:''First official record'': mentioned in Thomas Platter the Younger's Diary on 21 September 1599.
:''First published'': ''First Folio'' (1623), as ''The Tragedie of Ivlivs Cæsar''.
:''First recorded performance'': in his diary on 21 September 1599, Thomas Platter records "I went with my party across the water; in the straw-thatched house we saw the tragedy of the first Emperor Julius Caesar, very pleasingly performed, with approximately fifteen characters." This is almost universally accepted as a reference to a performance of ''Julius Caesar'' at the recently opened Globe Theatre.
:''Evidence'': obviously, the play was completed by September 1599, and may have been composed specifically as the opening play for the new theatre. Other pieces of evidence also serve to link it to 1599. For example, the play's absence from ''Palladis Tamia'' suggests it had not been performed by September 1598. Furthermore, an apparent indebtedness to John Davies' ''Nosce teipsum'' at 1.2.51–58 and another to Samuel Daniels' '' Musophilus'' at 3.1.111–116 help situate the play in 1599. ''Musophilus'' was entered into the Stationers Register on 9 January of that year, and ''Nosce teipsum'' on 14 April. Both were published for the first time in 1599, fixing 1599 as the ''terminus post quem''. Two allusions to the play in Jonson's ''Every Man Out Of His Humour'', registered on 8 April 1600, fix 1600 as the latest possible date of composition. Additionally, textual analysis has connected the play closely to ''Henry V'', which was definitely written in 1599. In the fifth-act prologue of ''Henry V'', the Chorus refers to "antique Rome," "plebeians" and "conqu'ring Caesar" (5.0.26–28), suggesting Shakespeare may already have had his mind on his next play. Metrically, ''Caesar'' is closest to ''Henry V'', and a colloquialism-in-verse test places it between ''Henry V'' and ''As You Like It''.

''

As You Like It'' (1599–1600)

:''First official record'': mentioned in the Stationers' Register on a flyleaf dated 4 August 1600 as "As y like yt." Grouped with ''Much Ado About Nothing'', ''Henry V'' and Ben Jonson's ''Every Man in His Humour'' under the heading "to be staied." Who wrote the note, the exact nature of the grouping of plays, and the meaning of "to be staied" is unknown, but is thought to have been an attempt by the Lord Chamberlain's Men to prevent unauthorised printing of the plays listed. The play was not formally entered into the Register until its entry for the 1623 ''First Folio''.
:''First published'': ''First Folio'' (1623).
:''First recorded performance'': possibly on 20 February 1599 at Richmond Park for Queen Elizabeth. The evidence comes from a payment to the Lord Chamberlain's Men for performances of three unnamed plays on St. Stephen's Day 1598, New Year's Day 1599, and Shrove Tuesday 1599 (i.e. 20 February). Juliet Dusinberre believes Touchstone's reference to pancakes (1.2.50–51) provides evidence that ''As You Like It'' was the unnamed play performed on 20 February. Another possible early performance may have taken place in December 1603 at Wilton House. In 1865, William Johnson Cory said that whilst visiting Wilton, he was told of a letter from the Countess of Pembroke to her son, William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, urging him to bring King James from Salisbury so he may see a performance of ''As You Like It'' at the house. James did come, residing at Wilton from 24 November to 12 December. Although Cory did not actually see the letter himself, and it has never been found or verified, a record of a payment to the Lord Chamberlain's Men for an unnamed play in December does exist, suggesting that something was performed at Wilton, but whether it was ''As You Like It'' seems impossible to ascertain. A Charles Johnson rewrite of the play, called ''Love in a Forest'', was performed at Drury Lane on 9 January 1723. The earliest definite performance of the Shakespearean text was on 20 December 1740 at Drury Lane.
:''Evidence'': ''As You Like It'' is a difficult play to date due to lack of solid external evidence, forcing scholars to rely on topical allusions, parallels with other work and stylistic analysis. Obviously, it was completed by August 1600. It is not mentioned in ''Palladis Tamia'', which could fix the date of composition as sometime between September 1598 and August 1600. In 1600, Thomas Morley published his ''First Book of Airs'', which includes a variation of the page's song from 5.3 of ''As You Like It''. According to the introduction of ''Airs'', Morley compiled the book during the summer of 1599. It is unknown if Shakespeare borrowed from Morley, Morley from Shakespeare or if they collaborated, but irrespective of the exact nature of the relationship, it suggests that that particular passage was written between the summer of 1599 and early 1600. Possible topical allusions also locate the play in 1599/1600. For example, the line "the little wit that fools have was silenced" (1.2.82–83) may refer to the book burnings of June 1599, and Jacques' "All the world's a stage" monologue (2.7.139–166) is a possible reference to the motto of the newly opened Globe Theatre; "''Totus mundus agit histrionem''" ("all the world is a playground"), taken from Petronius

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases