first printed; of Richard III., four; of Romeo and Juliet, three; of Henry IV., Part I, five; of Henry V., two; of The Merry Wives of Windsor, one; of Hamlet, three. Whether Lear was piratical, or whether a limited publication was allowed, it is clear, we think, that by some interference the continued publication was stopped. Davies, in his "Dramatic Miscellanies," has expressed an opinion, founded upon the circumstance that Shakspere's less perfect efforts were often republished and this not, that Lear was not popular. This argument is worthless; for it must be remembered that other of Shakspere's most perfect efforts, such as Macbeth, were not published at all till they were collected in the folio. In the folio text of Lear, as compared with the text of the quarto, there are verbal corrections and additions and omissions; but in the quarto text of that play the metrical arrangement is one mass of confusion. Speech after speech, and scene after scene, which in the genuine copy of the folio are metrically correct, are, in the quarto, either printed as prose, or the lines are so mixed together without any apparent knowledge in the editor of the metrical laws by which they were constructed, that it would have been almost impossible, from this text alone, to have reduced them to anything like the form in which they were written by the author. This circumstance appears to us conclusive that these quarto copies could not have been printed from the author's manuscript; and yet they might have been printed from a genuine playhouse copy. It is to be remarked that, in all the quarto editions, which it would appear from various collateral circumstances were not printed under the superintendence of the author, the metrical arrangement is, in the same way, more or less defective; and we may judge from this, that in the stage copies the pauses of the blank verse were either disregarded as a guide for the actors, or that the printed copies were produced from a report made in some way or other by persons present at the representation, or by the repetition of the players themselves, who would not mark those pauses. It will be observed that there is a remarkable particularity in the title of the quartos of Lear: "As it was plaid before the King's Majesty at White-Hall, uppon S. Stephens Night; in Christmas Hollidaies." In the entry at Stationers' Hall, Nov. 26, 1607, the same particularity occurs: "As yt was played before the King's Majestie at Whitehall, upon St. Stephen's night at Christmas last." From the somewhat ostentatious precision with which Butter mentions this circumstance, may it not be conjectured that he obtained a copy, used upon that occasion, from some one of the players-perfect to a certain extent, but still not the author's copy?

These considerations may at first sight appear unimportant, but they are of some consequence in determining the value of a text. The modern text of King Lear is essentially that of the folio. There are passages, indeed, which the editors have restored from the quartos; and we admit the importance of preserving those passages, upon the principle that not a line which appears to have been written by Shakspere ought to be lost; but, in other respects, the text of the folio is infinitely superior to that of the quartos, and the editors for the most part have abided by it. But they have sometimes made up a text out of both copies, and sometimes, arbitrarily as we think, preferred the text of the quartos to that of the folio. Our copy is literally that of the folio, except that where a passage occurs in the quartos which is not in the folio, we introduce such a passage, printing it, however, in brackets. It would have been wearisome, and, in a certain degree, useless, to have noticed all the differences between the folio and the quartos; but we notice the very few instances in which we adopt the text of the quartos and not that of the folio; and the instances also in which, adopting the text of the folio, we differ from the editors who have preferred that of the quarto.

The text of the folio, in one material respect, differs considerably from that of the quartos. Large passages which are found in the quartos are omitted in the folio: there are, indeed, some lines found in the folio which are not in the quartos, amounting to about fifty. These are scattered passages, not very remarkable when detached, but for the most part essential to the progress of the action or to the development of character. On the other hand, the lines found in the quartos which are not in the folio, amount to as many as two hundred and twenty-five; and they comprise one entire scene, and one or two of the most striking connected passages in the drama. It would be easy to account for these omissions, by the assumption that in the folio edition the original play was cut down by the editors; for Lear, without the omissions, is one amongst the longest of Shakspere's plays. But this theory would require us to assume, also, that the additions to the folio were made by the editors. These comprise several such minute touches as none but the hand of the

master could have superadded. One example will suffice. In the storm scene, when Lear and the Fool find the hovel, Lear says to him

'In, boy; go first.-You houseless poverty,

Nay, get thee in. I'll pray, and then I'll sleep"

Upon this passage Johnson has a note:-"These two lines were added in the author's revision, and are only in the folio. They are very judiciously intended to represent that humility, or tenderness, or neglect of forms, which affliction forces on the mind." But Johnson did not think so favourably of the omissions in the folio; although he has expressed an opinion that they were the omissions of the author. Of some lines in Act III., Scene VI., he says, "The omission of them in the folio is certainly faulty yet I believe the folio is printed from Shakspere's last revision, carelessly and hastily performed, with more thought of shortening the scenes than of continuing the action." We cannot willingly yield to the belief that Shakspere “carelessly and hastily" performed any part of his work; and, especially, that he yielded to this carelessness and haste in the revision of a tragedy which, taken altogether, "may be judged to be the most perfect specimen of the dramatic art existing in the world." Let us examine the matter, therefore, a little more in detail.

In the first and second acts the omissions are very slight. In the opening of the third act we lose a spirited description of Lear in the storm-"tears his white hair," &c. But mark,—it is description; and the judgment of Shakspere in omitting it is unquestionable, for he subsequently shows Lear in action under precisely the same circumstances. In the sixth scene of the same act is omitted the imaginary trial of Regan and Goneril, "I will arraign them straight." Was this a passage that an author would have thrust out carelessly and hastily? It is impossible, as it would be presumptuous were it possible, unhesitatingly to assign a motive for this omission. The physical exertion that would be necessary for any actor (even for Burbage, who we know played Lear) † to carry through the whole of the third act might have been so extreme as to render it expedient to make this abridgment; or, what is more probable, as Kent previous to this passage had said, “All the power of his wits have given way to his impatience," the imaginary arraignment might have been rejected by the poet, as exhibiting too much method in the madness. The rhyming soliloquy of Edgar, with which this scene closes, might have been spared by the poet without much compunction. The second scene of the fourth act, in which Albany so bitterly reproaches Goneril, is greatly abridged. In its amplified state it does not advance the progress of the action, nor contribute to the development of the characters. The whole of the third scene of that act is also omitted. It is one of the most beautifully written of the play; and we should indeed regret had it not been preserved to us in the quartos. But let it be borne in mind that the greater part of the scene is purely descriptive; and, exquisite as the description is, particularly in those parts which make us better understand the surpassing loveliness of Cordelia's character, we cannot avoid believing that the poet sternly resolved to let the effect of this wonderful drama entirely depend upon its action. Tieck puts the rejection of this scene upon another ground— that it introduced some complexity into the tragedy, and described events, such as the return of the French king, and the sojourn of Lear in Dover without seeing his daughter, which have no influence upon the future conduct of the poem. The subsequent omissions, to the end of the drama, are few and unimportant.

to

say

The period of the first production of Lear may be fixed with tolerable certainty. We do not mean that the precise year of its first performance can be ascertained, any more than the precise day. To Malone "it seems extremely probable that its first appearance was in March or April, 1605." To Dr. Drake "it appears more probable that its production is to be attributed to the close of the year 1604." Here Malone and Drake are at issue upon a question of three months; when the facts which we really know about the matter give us a range of three years. The first certain fact, which we collect from the registers of the Stationers' Company, is that Lear was played before King James, at Whitehall, upon St. Stephen's night, in the year 1606—that is, on the 26th of December. Here is the limit in one direction. In the other direction we have the publication in 1603, of Harsnet's

•We shall have occasion subsequently to advert to this opinion of Lear from a great poet-Shelley.

✦ In an elegy on Burbage, printed by Mr. Collier, are these lines:

"And his whole action he could change with ease,
From ancient Lear to youthful Pericles."

'Declaration of egregious Popish Impostures,' from which book Shakspere undoubtedly derived some materials which he employed in the assumed madness of Edgar. It is pretty clear, also, from two passages in the text of the quarto editions, that the author, or the actors of the tragedy, "as it was played before the king's majesty,” were careful to make two minute changes which would be agreeable to James. We have seen (Illustrations of Act III.) that after the accession of James, when he was proclaimed king of Great Britain, it was usual to merge the name of England in that of Britain. Bacon thus explains the completion of the old prophecy, "When hempe is sponne, England's donne." The ancient metrical saying, "Fy, fo, fum, I smell the blood of an English man," becomes in Lear, "I smell the blood of a British man ;" and in the quarto editions (Act iv. Scene VI.) we have

"And give the letters, which thou find'st about me,

To Edmund earl of Gloster; seek him out
Upon the British party.”

But the commentators have not noticed that in the folio edition of 1623 the latter passage is given, "Upon the English party." This slight difference proves one of two things- either that upon the publication of the folio the distinction between British and English, which was meant as a mark of compliment to James, had ceased to be regarded; or that the passage, having been written before his accession, had not been changed in the copy from which the folio was printed, as it was changed in the copy of the play acted before the king in 1606. The allusions derived from Harsnet's book fix the date of the tragedy as near as we can desire it to be fixed. All that we can hope for in these matters is an approximation to a date. It is sufficient for us to be confirmed, through such a fact, in the belief, derived from internal evidence, that Lear was produced at that period when the genius cf Shakspere was "at its very point of culmination."

SUPPOSED SOURCE OF THE PLOT.

THE story of Lear belongs to the popular literature of Europe. It is a pretty episode in the fabulous chronicles of Britain; and whether invented by the moukish historians, or transplanted into our annals from some foreign source, is not very material. In the 'Gesta Romanorum,' the same story is told of Theodosius, “a wise emperor in the city of Rome." Douce has published this story from the manuscript in the Harleian Collection. It may be sufficient to give the beginning of this curious narrative, to show how clearly all the histories have been derived from a common

Source:

"Theodosius regned, a wys emperour in the cite of Rome, and myghti he was of power; the whiche emperour had thre doughters. So hit liked to this emperour to knowe which of his doughters lovid him best. And tho he seid to the eldest doughter, how moche lo vist thou me? fforsoth, quod she, more than I do myself, therefore, quod he, thou shalt be hily avaunsed, and maried her to a riche and myghti kyng. Tho he cam to the secund, and seid to her, doughter, how moche lovist thou me? As moche forsoth, she seid, as I do myself. So the emperour maried her to a duc. And tho he seid to the thrid doughter, how moche lo vist thou me? fforsoth, quod she, as moche as ye beth worthi, and no more. Tho seid the emperour, doughter, sith thou lovist me no more, thou shalt not be maried so richely as thi susters beth. And tho he maried her to an erle.”

The French have a famous romance entitled 'La tres elegante delicieuse melliflue et tres plaisante hystoire du tres victorieux & excellentissime Roy Perceforest Roy de la grant Bretaigne,' of the veritable contents of which an account will be found in the Censura Literaria,' vol. viii. These chronicles, according to Sir Egerton Brydges, "begin with the foundation of Troy, which they affirm to have been in the third age of the world, and that it was taken while Abdon was judge over

Israel. The travels of Brutus, and his wars in Great Britain and Aquitaine, follow, which took place while Saul reigned in Judea, and Aristeus in Lacedemon. His grandson, Rududribas, father of the celebrated Bladud, founded the ancient city of Canterbury, which occurred during the time in which Haggai, Amos, and Joel, prophesied. These curious circumstances are succeeded by the story of Lear (son to Bladud) and his three daughters, which was in the time of Isaiah and Hosea, at which period also the city of Rome was founded." The exact chronology of the romancers and chroniclers is well worthy attention. Geoffrey of Monmouth is quite as precise as Pierceforest: "At this time flourished the prophets Isaiah and Hosea, and Rome was built upon the eleventh of the Calends of May, by the two brothers Romulus and Remus." With such unquestionable authority for the date of the story of Lear, well may Malone have been shocked when Edgar says, "Nero was an angler in the lake of darkness;" and we ought to be grave when Malone informs us, with the most perfect gravity, "Nero is introduced in the present play above eight hundred years before he was born." Shakspere found the story in his favourite Holinshed; and he probably did not trouble himself to refer to Geoffrey of Monmouth, from whom Holinshed abridged it. We subjoin the legend as told by Holinshed :—

"Leir, the son of Baldud, was admitted ruler over the Britains in the year of the world 3105. At what time Joas reigned as yet in Juda. This Leir was a prince of noble demeanour, governing his land and subjects in great wealth. He made the town of Cairleir, now called Leicester, which standeth upon the river of Dore. It is writ that he had by his wife three daughters, without other issue, whose names were, Gonorilla, Regan, and Cordilla, which daughters he greatly loved, but especially the youngest, Cordilla, far above the two elder.

"When this Leir was come to great years, and began to wear unwieldy through age, he thought to understand the affections of his daughters towards him, and prefer her whom he best loved to the succession of the kingdom; therefore, he first asked Gonorilla, the eldest, how well she loved him: the which, calling her gods to record, protested that she loved him more than her own life, which by right and reason should be most dear unto her; with which answer the father, being well pleased, turned to the second, and demanded of her how well she loved him? which answered (confirming her sayings with great oaths) that she loved him more than tongue can express, and far above all other creatures in the world.

"Then called he his youngest daughter, Cordilla, before him, and asked of her what account she made of him: unto whom she made this answer as followeth :-Knowing the great love and fatherly zeal you have always borne towards me (for the which, that I may not answer you otherwise than I think, and as my conscience leadeth me), I protest to you that I have always loved you, and shall continually while I live, love you as my natural father; and if you would more understand of the love that I bear you, ascertain yourself, that so much as you have, so much you are worth, and so much I love you, and no more.

"The father, being nothing content with this answer, married the two eldest daughters, the one unto the duke of Cornwall, named Henninus, and the other unto the duke of Albania, called Maglanus; and betwixt them, after his death, he willed and ordained his land should be divided, and the one-half thereof should be immediately assigned unto them in hand; but for the third daughter, Cordilla, he reserved nothing.

"Yet it fortuned that one of the princes of Gallia (which now is called France), whose naine was Aganippus, hearing of the beauty, womanhood, and good conditions of the said Cordilla, desired to have her in marriage, and sent over to her father, requiring that he might have her to wife; to whom answer was made, that he might have his daughter, but for any dowry he could have none, for all was promised and assured to her other sisters already.

'Aganippus, notwithstanding this answer of denial to receive anything by way of dower with Cordilla, took her to wife, only moved thereto (I say) for respect of her person and amiable virtues. This Aganippus was one of the twelve kings that ruled Gallia in those days, as in the British history it is recorded. But to proceed; after that Leir was fallen into age, the two dukes that had married his two eldest daughters, thinking it long ere the government of the land did come to their hands, arose against him in armour, and reft from him the governance of the land, upon conditions to be continued for term of life: by the which he was put to his portion; that is, to live after a rate assigned to him for the maintenance of his estate, which in process of time was diminished, as well by Maglanus as by Henninus.

"But the greatest grief that Leir took was to see the unkindness of his daughters, who seemed to think that all was too much which their father had, the same being never so little, in so much that, going from the one to the other, he was brought to that misery that they would allow him only one servant to wait upon him. In the end, such was the unkindness, or, as I may say, the unnaturalness, which he found in his two daughters, notwithstanding their fair and pleasant words uttered in time past, that, being constrained of necessity, he fled the land, and sailed into Gallia, there to seek some comfort of his youngest daughter, Cordilla, whom before he hated.

"The lady Cordilla, hearing he was arrived in poor estate, she first sent to him privately a sum of money to apparel himself withall, and to retain a certain number of servants, that might attend upon him in honourable wise, as apperteyned to the estate which he had borne. And then, so accompanyed, she appointed him to come to the court, which he did, and was so joyfully, honourably, and lovingly received, both by his son-in-law Aganippus, and also by his daughter Cordilla, that his heart was greatly comforted: for he was no less honoured than if he had been king of the whole country himself. Also, after that he had informed his son-in-law and his daughter in what sort he had been used by his other daughters, Aganippus caused a mighty army to be put in readiness, and likewise a great navy of ships to be rigged to pass over into Britain, with Leir his father-in-law, to see him again restored to his kingdom.

"It was accorded that Cordilla should also go with him to take possession of the land, the which he promised to leave unto her, as his rightful inheritor after his decease, notwithstanding any former grants made unto her sisters, or unto their husbands, in any manner of wise; hereupon, when this army and navy of ships were ready, Leir and his daughter Cordilla, with her husband, took the sea, and arriving in Britain, fought with their enemies, and discomfited them in battle, in the which Maglanus and Henninus were slain, and then was Leir restored to his kingdom, which he ruled after this by the space of two years, and then died, forty years after he first began to reign. His body was buried at Leicester, in a vault under the channel of the river Dore, beneath the town."

The subsequent fate of Cordelia is also narrated by Holinshed. She became queen after her father's death; but her nephews "levied war against her, and destroyed a great part of the land, and finally took her prisoner, and laid her fast in ward, wherewith she took such grief, being a woman of a manly courage, and despairing to recover liberty, there she slew herself." Spenser, in the second book of "The Fairy Queen,' canto 10, has told the story of Lear and his daughters, in six stanzas, in which he has been content to put in verse, with very slight change or embellishment, the narrative of the chroniclers. The concluding stanza will be a sufficient specimen :

"So to his crown she him restor'd again,

In which he dy'd, made ripe for death by eld,
And after will'd it should to her remain ;
Who peaceably the same long time did weld,
And all men's hearts in due obedience held;
Till that her sister's children, woxen strong,
Through proud ambition against her rebell'd,
And overcomen, kept in prison long,

Till weary of that wretched life, herself she hong."

The story of Lear had unquestionably been dramatised before Shakspere produced his tragedy. 'The true Chronicle History of King Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella, a it hath been divers and sundry times lately acted,' was printed, probably for the first time, in 1605; but there can be no doubt that it belongs to a period some ten, fifteen, or perhaps twenty years earlier. In 1594 an entry was made at Stationers' Hall, of 'The moste famous Chronicle Hystorie of Leire King of England, and his Three Daughters.' Theobald calls this old play an execrable performance;" Percy, "a very poor and dull performance;" and Capell, "a silly old play." It is certainly all these, when compared with the wonderful production of Shakspere; but we are by no means certain that it is not as good as half the pieces which occupied the stage, and not unsuccessfully, at the very time that Shakspere had produced some of his most glorious works. Theobald and Capell have selected some of the worst passages from this curious drama. We subjoin a scene which will enable our readers to compare it with the first scene of Shakspere's Lear: