If my conjecture is correct, it will also throw some light upon the external history of this curious piece. It appeared in print in the two quartos of 1609, both of which were published by the same bookseller. One of these is accompanied by a letter from the Editor, addressed to the readers, in which it is expressly stated that the piece had never been acted before; the other has the usual addition to the title as it was acted by the King's Majesties Servants at the Globe.' And yet a Troilus and Cressida' is entered at Stationers' Hall, as early as the 7th of Feb. 1603, without Shakspeare's name, it is true, but as having been acted by the Lord Chamberlain's company. The latter circumstance, and an allusion in Dekker's 'Satiromastix,' which appeared in 1602, makes it seem probable that this piece was Shakspeare's Troilus and Cressida.' Accordingly, it must have appeared on the stage as early as the beginning of 1602. And this was just the time when Ben Jonson appeared with his 'Poetaster' and his attacks upon the popular theatre, advocating the cause of the ancient drama. While, therefore, Dekker was working at his Satiromastix,' Shakspeare may have been somewhat quicker with his answer in Troilus and Cressida,' probably, however, with but the first hasty sketch of the whole. In this way the piece may have been performed several times in the small winter theatre of Blackfriars, or perhaps only at court and prepared for the press by some publisher; at a later period, however, when Ben Jonson as we have seen→→ was defeated, and the interest in the dispute had subsided, it may have been withdrawn from the stage, and, therefore, have ceased to be printed. However when, in 1608, Ben Jonson and his party, as we have seen, became more powerful than ever, Shakspeare may then have wholly remodelled the earlier play. This form was probably the one that fell into the hands of the publisher of the quartos who had it printed so hurriedly-a sign of Shakspeare's great popularity-that the first edition may have been published, or a portion of the ready copies sold, before it had appeared on the stage. The form, therefore, in which we now have it, I should be inclined to assign to the year 1608-9.

'The Merry Wives of Windsor,' on the other hand, may have been written as early as 1600 or 1601; for the piece is entered at Stationers' Hall under the date of the 18th of Jan. 1602. That it could not have appeared much earlier is proved-apart from the language and character of the drama-by the external circumstances that it is not mentioned among the twelve pieces enumerated by Meres. The reasons given by Chalmers for assigning it to the year 1596, before the appearance of Henry IV.,' have been sufficiently refuted by Drake. Charles Knight * is inclined to date it as far back as 1592, inasmuch as he thinks that the German duke (whose suite cheat the Host out of his horses), contains an allusion to the journey of Prince Frederick of Würtemburg to England, which took place in 1592. But this hypothesis is inadmissible from the simple fact that the piece must necessarily have been written after Henry IV.,' as Halliwell † has satisfactorily proved. But if this hypothesis be accepted, we should also have to assume that it did not appear till after 1598, and not-as Knight § now thinks-as early as 1596; otherwise it would assuredly have been mentioned by Meres.

Lastly, from what sources Shakspeare borrowed the materials for these two tragedies seems to me a matter of small importance. In both the invention is too much a secondary consideration; the chief interest in the one piece lies too much in Falstaff's character and in the other is toc much centred upon the view of life in classic antiquity. Halliwell || has collected all the various novels and tales which might have furnished the poet with individual features or situations. But not any one of these, nor their

*Pictorial Edition of Shakspere, vol. iii.

First Sketch of Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor, xviii. f.

H. Kurz (Zu Shakspeare's Leben und Schaffen, etc., Munich, 1868, p. 59 ff. 100 ff.) has recently taken up this hypothesis again, and endeavours to point out-more particularly by reason of the abovementioned allusion-that not only The Merry Wives of Windsor and the two parts of Henry IV., but that Henry V. also must have been written as early as 1595. His proof, however, is a mere tissue of hypotheses, which, it is true, he treats as established facts that might lead to further conclusions, but, in my opinion, they are not even plausible.

§ Studies of Shakspere..

L.c. 75 ff.

That Shakspeare

totality can be regarded as his source. borrowed the subject from the Tragedie von einer Ehebrecherin, a drama written by Duke Heinrich Julius of Brunswick—even though with various modifications as Kurz* thinks he has proved--is very improbable, as there is no trace of the dramatic works of the German duke having been known in England in those days.

As regards Troilus and Cressida,' there are several works from which Shakspeare might have drawn his materials; perhaps from an older piece by Th. Dekker and H. Chettle, which Henslowe mentions in his Diary under the date of the 16th of April, 1599; perhaps from the 'dialogised ballad' which, according to the Stationers' registers, was to be printed in 1581; probably, however, from Chaucer's five books of Troylus and Creseyda' (of which the last edition appeared in 1602), together with Chapman's translation which was published in separate parts from 1598.†

In the Introduction to his translation of The Merry Wives of Windsor.

+ Collier's Shakespeare, vi. 5. Compare also Gervinus' Commentaries on Shakespeare.

CHAPTER VIII.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE. CYMBELINE.

'MEASURE for Measure,' like 'The Merchant of Venice,' has been classed by Heminge and Condell, in the first part of their edition of Shakspeare's works, among the comedies.' But the subject upon which the play is founded is of so serious a nature, and treated by the poet with so much seriousness, the representation throughout borders so closely upon the domain of tragedy, and the comic parts are so decidedly left in the background, that the drama cannot altogether be called a comedy, at least, not in the same sense as the pieces already discussed. It has more resemblance with those pieces which Shakspeare s earlier contemporaries-especially Beaumont and Fletcher -introduced upon the stage under the title of 'tragicomedies.' Shakspeare does not seem to have known, or not to have cared to adopt this title, perhaps from a right feeling that from an aesthetico-artistic point of viewgreat objection might be raised against the propriety of such an intermediate species between tragedy and comedy, which seemed rather like a hybrid production. And yet the difference, to which the above name refers, is brought so prominently forward in the character and the treatment of the subject, if not in the actual essence and nature of the poem, that we cannot fail to see it even though we may not be inclined to regard it as a distinct species of drama. It is much the same, as we shall see, with ' Cymheline;' I have therefore classed both dramas together, and have inserted them here as an appendage to the comedies and a point of transition to the historical dramas.

1. MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

This piece was probably written at least seven years after The Merchant of Venice,' and the two dramas also differ

*

very much both in tone and colouring. And yet to judge from its ideal subject-matter, it shows the closest affinity to The Merchant of Venice;' at least, the basis upon which the whole is erected is the same, even though the structure itself bears a different character.

A Duke of Vienna forms the resolution to exchange, for a time, his purple mantle for a monk's cowl, and, under the pretext of a distant and pressing journey, to leave his sceptre in the hands of another, in order meanwhile, in a state of incognito, to examine into the state of his dominions, and more especially into the mode and the effect of his representative's government. This plan may appear a capricious idea, and yet when examined more closely it has a well-founded motive both in the character and the position of the Duke. He is a man of warm affections for his fellow-creatures, and of high morality. Accordingly, he has hitherto exercised his power with clemency and indulgence; he fears with too much indulgence, for he has observed that vice and crime are alarmingly on the increase among his subjects. His wish was to ascertain whether his fears were well-founded, and also to correct his own mistakes, without appearing inconsistent or exposing himself to the reproach of punishing that, for which he

*Tieck conjectured that it was written about 1612-partly on account of the language and style, partly because he thought he had found the piece to contain an allusion to the literary club which met at St. Dunstan's under the presidency of Ben Jonson. The deep sombre colouring of the piece also, that heavy, serious tone which is apparent in Shakspeare's later works and is already felt here, seemed to point to a late origin. In the first edition of this work, therefore, I shaved Tieck's opinion. But it has been proved, through the Accounts of the Revels at Court (p. 204), published by Peter Cunningham, that Measure for Measure had been performed at Court on St. Stephen's night (Dec. 26), 1604; accordingly it must, at latest, have been written during the course of that year, but probably also, no earlier. And yet, for reasons already stated, I think that it was subsequently remodelled by Shakspeare, and considerably altered. Perhaps the ever-increasing rigorous spirit of the Puritans-with the r love of persecution and pharisaic pride of virtue-may, after the accession of James, have induced the poet to rehandle the subject, as well to remodel the drama; he might (when the nuisance continued to increase, after 1604) have laid on his colours more thickly, and thus renewed his attack more sharply. Measure for Measure did not appear in print till in the folio of 1623.