tragedy" (exoletam tragoediam de tragica abdicatione regis Ric. II, according to Camden), and the players complained that "they should have loss in playing it, because few would come to it." 1 (ii.) Dr. Simon Forman saw a play of Richard II, at the Globe, on April 30, 1611; it dealt with the tumult of Jack Straw and the death of the Duke of Gloucester, i.e., with earlier events of the reign; (i.) and (ii.) were possibly the first and second parts of a chronicle history of the whole reign of Richard II. (iii.) In 1870 Mr. T. Halliwell printed, for the first time, from the Egerton MSS. (in the British Museum), “The Tragedy of Richard II, concluding with the murder of the Duke of Gloster at Calais"; Mr. Halliwell claimed that the play was composed before Shakespeare's; but this view has been rightly contested (cp. New Shakespeare Society's Transactions, April 10, 1885), and in all probability the production belongs to the end of the first quarter of the seventeenth century. THE DATE OF COMPOSITION The publication of the First Quarto in 1597 gives us one hint for the date of composition, which may be safely assigned to about the year 1593. A noticeable piece of external evidence is perhaps to be found in the second edition of Daniel's Civil Wars, published in 1595, which contains certain striking parallels with Shakespeare's play not found in the earlier version. The likeness may possibly be purely accidental; on the other hand, we know that Daniel was addicted to the vice of plagiarism.2 1 Prof. Hales considers it unlikely that there were two plays answering the same description "in the field" of the Globe-two plays dealing with the closing years of Richard II (Notes and Essays on Shakespeare, p. 208). 2 Cp. "Only let him more sparingly make use Return from Parnassus. In the second play of the trilogy the author makes it quite clear The relation of Richard II to Marlowe's Edward II (not earlier than 1590) throws valuable light on the date of composition. As regards versification, it is to be noted that Shakespeare broke away from Marlowe's example, and in place of a rigid use of blank verse, made free use of rhyme: no less than one-fifth of Richard II is in rhymed verse. The proportion of rhyme cannot be taken as an absolute test in placing the piece: it may perhaps be due to an intentional experiment on Shakespeare's part to produce that "unity of lyrical effect" which is the play's most striking characteristic. In the avoidance of prose, however, the Marlowan precedent is still followed, as in the case of Richard III and King John. A general consideration of the metrical tests places Richard II between Richard III and Henry IV, Romeo and Juliet and King John belonging to nearly the same date. But in dramatic method, no less than in versification, Shakespeare's play shows resistance of Marlowe's influence, though the subject of Richard II may, as is very probable, have been suggested by the similar theme of Edward II.1 "The reluctant pangs of abdicating royalty in Edward II” may have, in Charles Lamb's famous words, "furnished hints which Shakespeare scarcely improved in his Richard II." Outwardly the two plays have much in common; in tragic pathos, arising from the collision of incident and character, as opposed to tragic horror, Shakespeare had left his predecessor far behind. THE SOURCE OF THE PLAY Shakespeare's main source for the historical facts of Richard II was Holinshed's Chronicle of Englande, Scotland, and Ireland; probably the second edition of the work that Daniel showed at times too palpably the influence exercised upon him by Shakespeare. 1 It is perhaps worth while pointing out that the parallel of Edward and Richard is brought out by Hayward in his History of Henry the Fourth, where Richard's last words refer to his great-grandfather, King Edward the Second, "being in this manner deposed, imprisoned, and murdered," &c. published in 1586, which alone contains the withering of the bay-trees (II. iv. 8). Stowe's Annals (1580) seems to have supplied the story of Mowbray's career in Palestine (IV. i. 97). Other sources were used by Shakespeare, but they are unknown; neither Hall nor Holinshed states that the Bishop of Carlisle was committed to the custody of the Abbot of Westminster. On the whole, Holinshed has been carefully followed by Shakespeare; among the chief divergences are-(i.) the re-creation of characters of the Queen, and Gaunt; (ii.) the death-bed scene of Gaunt, and the deposition scene of Richard; (iii.) the introduction of the gardener, the servant, and the groom; (iv.) changes in historic time and place, etc. (cp. Riechelman's Abhandlung zu Richard II und Holinshed). DURATION OF ACTION The time of Richard II. covers fourteen days, with intervals; the historic period is from April 29, 1398, to the beginning of March, 1400, "at which time the body of Richard, or what was declared to be such, was brought to London" (cp. Daniel's Time-Analysis, Trans. New Shakespeare Society, 1877-79, p. 269). |