LITERARY HISTORY.

FOUR editions in Quarto of this play were published before the date of the first Folio, 1623. It appears that the Tragedy of Richard II. was entered on the Stationers' Register by Andrew Wise on 29th August, 1597; the full title-page of this edition (Quarto) being:

The Tragedie of King Ri- | chard the Se|cond. | As it hath beene publikely acted | by the right Honourable the | Lorde Chamberlaine his Ser- uants. | LONDON. | Printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise, and | are to be sold at his Shop in Paules church yard at the signe of the Angel. | 1597 | (Q. 1).

The next edition (Q. 2) was published in 1598, when the author's name was first added: "By William Shake-speare." The third edition (Q. 3) was published in 1608:

Printed by W. W. for Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Foxe. | 1608. |

Of this edition there was a second issue in the same year with the following title-page:

The Tragedie of King | Richard the Second: | with new additions of the Parlia- | ment Sceane, and the deposing of King Richard, As it hath been lately acted by the Kinges Maiesties Seruantes, at the Globe. | By William Shake-speare. | At London, Printed by W. W. for Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the Signe of the Foxe. 1608. |

A fifth edition (Q. 4) was published in 1615: the title-page was substantially the same as that of the second issue of the last edition, except that it is stated to be "Printed for Mathew Law."

The Cambridge Editors say: "Each of these Quartos was printed from its immediate predecessor. The third however contains an

important addition, found in all the extant copies of Q. 3, amounting to 165 lines, viz. act iv. sc. 1, lines 154-318. This is what is meant by the new additions of the Parliament Scene' mentioned in the title-pages of some copies of Q. 3, and in that of Q. 4. These 'new additions' are found also in the first and following Folios, and in Q.5. The play, as given in the first Folio, was no doubt printed from a copy of Q. 4, corrected with some care, and prepared for stage representation. Several passages have been left out with a view of shortening the performance. In the 'new additions of the Parliament scene' it would appear that the defective text of the Quarto had been corrected from the author's MS. For this part therefore the first Folio is our highest authority: for all the rest of the play the first Quarto affords the best text." (Cambridge Edn. vol. iv. page ix.)

66

The fifth edition (Q. 5), 1634, was printed from the Second Folio; but, as the Cambridge Editors remark: "its readings sometimes agree with one or other of the earlier Quartos, and in a few cases are entirely independent of previous editions." The title-page is substantially the same as that of the two last editions except that it was Printed by Iohn Norton." Shakespeare seems to have taken his material chiefly from Holinshed's Chronicles, which he follows indeed very closely; for some touches he may have been indebted to Hall. Messrs. Clark and Wright, in their preface to this play (Clarendon Press Series), say that it is evident that Shakespeare "used the second edition of Holinshed, published in 1586-7, from the fact that the withering of the baytrees (ii. 4. 8) is recorded in that edition alone, and not in the first of 1577."

It seems to be the opinion of most editors that there were at least two other plays on

the same subject, besides Shakespeare's. Mr. Stokes in his work on the Chronological order of Shakespeare's plays mentions a third entitled: "The Tragedy of Richard II., concluding with the murder of the Duke of Gloster at Calais," which was reprinted in 1870.1 The first of these two plays is thought to have been the one acted in 1601, on the afternoon preceding the day of the rebellion of Essex, in the presence of Sir Gilly Merrick and others of the followers of Essex. In the State Paper Office the following document is preserved :

"The exam. of Augustyne Phillyppes, servant unto the L. Chamberleyne, and one of his players, taken the xviijth of Februarij, 1600[-1], upon hys othe. "He sayeth that on Fryday last was sennyght, or Thursday, Sr Charles Pryce, or Jostlyne Pryce, and the L. Montegle, with some thre more, spake to some of the players, in the presens of thys examt to have the playe of the deposyng and kyllyng of Kyng Rychard the Second to be played the Saterday next, promysing to geve them xls more then their ordynary to play yt; when this examt and hys fellowes were determyned to have played some other play, holdyng that play of Kyng Rychard to be so old, and so long out of yous (use), that they should have small or no cumpany at yt. But at theire request, this exam and his fellowes were content to play it the Saterday, and have theise xls more then theire ordynary for yt, and so played yt accordyngly. Augustine Phillipps.

Ex per Jo. Popham.

Edw. Anderson.

Edw. Fenner."

I confess, that, from the last document quoted, I cannot see why the play alluded to should not have been that of Shakespeare, which is supposed to have been written about 1594; and at any rate to have been acted some time before it was first published. Surely, in 1601, to actors who were in the habit of playing three or four different pieces every week, this play might have seemed “old and long

1 See below, pp. 333, 334.

out of use;" and, however high may be the opinion held by some critics of Richard II., it must be confessed that it is one which from its deficiency in dramatic interest was likely to be shelved when it had ceased to have any particular political application.

Messrs. Clark and Wright maintain that "it is certain the play represented at Merrick's instigation was not Shakespeare's play." [Preface to Richard II. (Clarendon Press Series), page 5.] They add: "And it would be difficult to conceive any play less likely to serve the ends of the conspirators than this of Shakespeare even with the deposition scene, in which the sympathies of the audience during the later acts are powerfully attracted to the unfortunate King. And besides, the conspirators were most anxious to disclaim any attempt upon their Sovereign's life." But that Queen Elizabeth was often compared with Richard II. is quite clear; and the displeasure which she showed at Sir John Hayward's publication of his History of the First Year of the Reign of Henry IV. for which he was censured by the Star Chamber, and committed to prison, proves how touchy she was upon this subject. It is also highly probable that the lines, iv. 1. 154– 318, which are said in the second issue of the

2 For the special political application which Richard II. must have had when first written, see the paper by the late Richard Simpson on the Politics of Shakespeare's Historical Plays. (New Shakspere Society's Transactions, 1874, Pt. 2, pp. 406-11.)

3 Staunton says in his Introduction to this play that Queen Elizabeth "in a conversation with the accomplished William Lambarde, twelve months afterwards, on the occasion of his presenting her with his pandect of her Rolls in the Tower, when, looking through the records, she came to the reign of Richard II. she remarked: 'I am Richard II. know ye not that?' Lambarde replied, in allusion to the Essex attempt, 'Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a most unkind gent, the most adorned creature that ever your Majesty made' to which her Majesty rejoined: 'He that will forget God, will also forget his benefactors: this tragedy was played 40tie times in open streets and houses."" The authority given for this quotation in Collier's edition (vol. iii. p. 212) is Thorpe's Costumale Roffense (p. 89). I failed to find the passage in Thorpe's Works at the British Museum; but, granting that Elizabeth was accurate, the statement that this tragedy had been played 40 times "in open streets and houses" might be considered by Messrs. Clark and Wright, and those who agree with them, as tending to prove the tragedy could not have been Shakespeare's Richard II.