Misplaced Pages

Chronology of Shakespeare's plays: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:41, 15 April 2010 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,556 editsm Don't spoil your work. This violates rules against using other wiki rules as a source, and is fringe, inappropriate to a mainstream-based article← Previous edit Revision as of 17:09, 15 April 2010 edit undoSsilvers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers179,344 edits Restoring the version offered by Bertaut, which is a good compromise.Next edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
Another problem with publication dates is that many of the plays published prior to 1623 were pirated, unauthorised versions. These ']s' are often hypothesised to be ] from performances and then sold as if they were the actual play. In many cases however, scholars are unsure of the exact relationship between the play as it appeared in the 1623 ''First Folio'' and the original publication. '']'' is a good example; scholars continue to debate whether the 1594 ] play ''A Pleasant Conceited Historie called the taming of a Shrew'' is an early draft of the 1623 play (from which it differs in many details), a bad quarto (ie a reported text), a source, an adaptation or simply another play based on a story now lost upon which Shakespeare also based his own play. Similarly, scholars continue to debate whether the 1594 quarto play ''The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster'' is an early draft of '']'', a reconstruction from a performance, or both. Another problem with publication dates is that many of the plays published prior to 1623 were pirated, unauthorised versions. These ']s' are often hypothesised to be ] from performances and then sold as if they were the actual play. In many cases however, scholars are unsure of the exact relationship between the play as it appeared in the 1623 ''First Folio'' and the original publication. '']'' is a good example; scholars continue to debate whether the 1594 ] play ''A Pleasant Conceited Historie called the taming of a Shrew'' is an early draft of the 1623 play (from which it differs in many details), a bad quarto (ie a reported text), a source, an adaptation or simply another play based on a story now lost upon which Shakespeare also based his own play. Similarly, scholars continue to debate whether the 1594 quarto play ''The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster'' is an early draft of '']'', a reconstruction from a performance, or both.


Added to this, a number of orthodox scholars disagree with the conventional dating system entirely. E.A.J. Honigmann for example, dissents from the more common dating of the plays. In 1982, he developed what he refers to as the 'early start theory'. Most 20th century chronologies tend to be based on the work of ] in 1930, which posits that Shakespeare only began composing plays when he arrived in London sometime between 1588 and 1591.<ref>See E.A.J. Honigmann, ''Shakespeare's Impact on his Contemporaries'' (1982)</ref> Honigmann, however, suggests he began writing plays sooner, and believes the chronology begins with ''Titus Andronicus'', which he estimates was written in 1586, and continues with '']'', which he places in 1587. Honigmann's theory does have the value of explaining how Shakespeare was able to write so many plays in such a short period of time upon arriving in London (at least six in the first two or three years), however, the majority of critics reject it.<ref>See, for example, Eric Sims, ''The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years'' (Yale: Yale University Press, 1997), Park Honan, ''Shakespeare: A Life'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), or Brenda James and William D. Rubinstein, ''Unmasking the Real Shakespeare: The Truth Will Out'' (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2006)</ref> Added to this, a number of orthodox scholars, as well as many ] researchers (so called because they argue that someone other than William Shakespeare of ] was the author of what we call the Shakespearean canon), disagree with the conventional dating system entirely.<ref>See the ] and the ] for more details</ref> E.A.J. Honigmann for example, although not an anti-Stratfordian, does dissent from the more common dating of the plays. In 1982, he developed what he refers to as the 'early start theory'. Most 20th century chronologies tend to be based on the work of ] in 1930, which posits that Shakespeare only began composing plays when he arrived in London sometime between 1588 and 1591.<ref>See E.A.J. Honigmann, ''Shakespeare's Impact on his Contemporaries'' (1982)</ref> Honigmann, however, suggests he began writing plays sooner, and believes the chronology begins with ''Titus Andronicus'', which he estimates was written in 1586, and continues with '']'', which he places in 1587. Honigmann's theory does have the value of explaining how Shakespeare was able to write so many plays in such a short period of time upon arriving in London (at least six in the first two or three years), however, the majority of critics reject it.<ref>See, for example, Eric Sims, ''The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years'' (Yale: Yale University Press, 1997), Park Honan, ''Shakespeare: A Life'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), or Brenda James and William D. Rubinstein, ''Unmasking the Real Shakespeare: The Truth Will Out'' (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2006)</ref>


Despite all these difficulties however, Shakespearean scholars, beginning with ] in 1790, have attempted to reconstruct the plays' relative chronology by various means, including contemporary allusions and records of performance, entries in the ], dates of publication, visceral impressions and studies of the development of the playwright's style and diction over time. Despite all these difficulties however, Shakespearean scholars, beginning with ] in 1790, have attempted to reconstruct the plays' relative chronology by various means, including contemporary allusions and records of performance, entries in the ], dates of publication, visceral impressions and studies of the development of the playwright's style and diction over time.
Line 18: Line 18:


==Shakespeare's plays== ==Shakespeare's plays==
⚫ *1590 (1623) '']'' (Honigmann, 1589)
(Variant dates for E.A.J. Honigmann's 'early start theory' are from E. A. J. Honigmann,''Shakespeare: the "lost years",'' (1985) Rev.ed., Manchester University Press, 1998 pp.128-129)

⚫ *1590 (1623) '']'' (Honigmann, 1588)
*:Stationers' Register on 25 February 1598. *:Stationers' Register on 25 February 1598.
*1590 (1594) '']'' (Honigmann 1589) *1590 (1594) '']'' (Honigmann 1590)
*1590 (1595) '']'' (Honigmann 1590) *1590 (1595) '']'' (Honigmann 1591)
*:Parodied by ] in 1592. *:Parodied by ] in 1592.
*1592 (1602) '']'' (Honigmann, 1590) *1592 (1602) '']'' (Honigmann, 1591)
*:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1592 (1623) '']'' (Honigmann 1589) *1592 (1623) '']'' (Honigmann 1590)
*: If this is the same as the play titled "The Night of Errors", it was performed on 28 December 1594. Probably the "errors" in Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *: If this is the same as the play titled "The Night of Errors", it was performed on 28 December 1594. Probably the "errors" in Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1593 (1594) '']'' (Honigmann,1586) *1593 (1594) '']'' (Honigmann,1587)
*: Act 1, and scenes 2.1:2.2:4.1 were probably written by ].<ref>], ''Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays,''Oxford University Press, 2002, ch.3. pp.148-243.</ref> According to the first published edition it was performed by a company that folded in early 1593. In 1594 ] referred to it as a "new" play. In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *: Act 1, and scenes 2.1:2.2:4.1 were probably written by ].<ref>], ''Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays,''Oxford University Press, 2002, ch.3. pp.148-243.</ref> According to the first published edition it was performed by a company that folded in early 1593. In 1594 ] referred to it as a "new" play. In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1593 (1594) '']'' (Honigmann,1588) *1593 (1594) '']'' (Honigmann,1589)
*1594 (1623) '']'' (Honigmann 1587) *1594 (1623) '']'' (Honigmann 1588)
*: In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. The work may have been based on Bartholomew Yong's translation of ]'s ''Diana'', which was done in 1583 but not published until 1598. *: In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. The work may have been based on Bartholomew Yong's translation of ]'s ''Diana'', which was done in 1583 but not published until 1598.
*1594 (1598) '']'' (Honigmann 1593) *1594 (1598) '']'' (Honigmann 1593)
*: In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *: In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1591-1596 (1597) '']'' (Honigmann,1591) *1591-1596 (1597) '']'' (Honigmann,1592)
*:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1595 (1597) '']'' *1595 (1597) '']''
Line 42: Line 40:
*1595 (1600) '']'' *1595 (1600) '']''
*:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1596 (1622) '']'' (Honigmann 1591) *1596 (1622) '']'' (Honigmann 1592)
*:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays. *:In Francis Meres' 1598 list of Shakespeare plays.
*1596 (1600) '']'' *1596 (1600) '']''

Revision as of 17:09, 15 April 2010

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

Difficulty of creating a precise chronology

There is no such thing as a precise or definitive chronology of Shakespeare's plays, as with the currently available evidence, it is impossible to determine exactly when many of them were written. This is especially pronounced in relation to the earlier plays. No authoritative chronological record survives from his lifetime, and dates of performance are often of limited use, as oftentimes it is impossible to determine if a given performance is the first performance. Dates of first publication are also relatively useless in determining a chronology, as about half of the plays were unpublished until the First Folio in 1623 (seven years after Shakespeare's death). 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; Henry VI, Part 3 was performed in 1592 but not published until 1595).

Another problem with publication dates is that many of the plays published prior to 1623 were pirated, unauthorised versions. These 'bad quartos' are often hypothesised to be memorially reconstructed from performances and then sold as if they were the actual play. In many cases however, scholars are unsure of the exact relationship between the play as it appeared in the 1623 First Folio and the original publication. The Taming of the Shrew is a good example; scholars continue to debate whether the 1594 quarto play A Pleasant Conceited Historie called the taming of a Shrew is an early draft of the 1623 play (from which it differs in many details), a bad quarto (ie a reported text), a source, an adaptation or simply another play based on a story now lost upon which Shakespeare also based his own play. Similarly, scholars continue to debate whether the 1594 quarto play The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster is an early draft of Henry VI, Part 2, a reconstruction from a performance, or both.

Added to this, a number of orthodox scholars, as well as many anti-Stratfordian researchers (so called because they argue that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of what we call the Shakespearean canon), disagree with the conventional dating system entirely. E.A.J. Honigmann for example, although not an anti-Stratfordian, does dissent from the more common dating of the plays. In 1982, he developed what he refers to as the 'early start theory'. Most 20th century chronologies tend to be based on the work of E.K. Chambers in 1930, which posits that Shakespeare only began composing plays when he arrived in London sometime between 1588 and 1591. Honigmann, however, suggests he began writing plays sooner, and believes the chronology begins with Titus Andronicus, which he estimates was written in 1586, and continues with The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which he places in 1587. Honigmann's theory does have the value of explaining how Shakespeare was able to write so many plays in such a short period of time upon arriving in London (at least six in the first two or three years), however, the majority of critics reject it.

Despite all these difficulties however, Shakespearean scholars, beginning with Edmond Malone in 1790, have attempted to reconstruct the plays' relative chronology by various means, including contemporary allusions and records of performance, entries in the Stationers' Register, dates of publication, visceral impressions and studies of the development of the playwright's style and diction over time.

Chronology

There are four main scholarly editions of the Complete Works of Shakespeare; The Riverside Shakespeare (G. Blakemore Evans, 1974; 2nd edn., 1996), The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works (Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, John Jowett and William Montgomery, 1986; 2nd edn., 2005), The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition (Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard and Katharine Eisaman Haus, 1997; 2nd edn., 2008) and The Arden Shakespeare: Complete Works (Richard Proudfoot, Ann Thompson and David Scott Kastan, 1998; 2nd edn. 2002).

Arden presents the plays alphabetically without any attempt to construct an overall chronology. Oxford, Riverside and Norton all present chronologies which differ from one another, and no one edition has any real authority over any of the others.

Dates in the following lists are estimates. (Dates in parentheses indicate the date of first publication.)

Shakespeare's plays

Other plays

Main article: Shakespeare Apocrypha

Possible collaborations

Misattributions

The following plays have been attributed to Shakespeare but are in fact of different or uncertain authorship:

References

  1. See the Oxfordian chronology and the Shakespeare authorship question for more details
  2. See E.A.J. Honigmann, Shakespeare's Impact on his Contemporaries (1982)
  3. See, for example, Eric Sims, The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years (Yale: Yale University Press, 1997), Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), or Brenda James and William D. Rubinstein, Unmasking the Real Shakespeare: The Truth Will Out (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2006)
  4. Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays,Oxford University Press, 2002, ch.3. pp.148-243.
  5. The RSC Shakespeare: The Complete Works
  6. Ann Thompson, Neil Taylor (eds.) Hamlet,, Arden ed.2006 p.47,59
  7. Shaksperian Scraps, chapter: "The Forman Notes" (1933). Tannenbaum reports that "Malone had at first decided that it was written in 1594; subsequently he seems to have assigned it to 1604; later still, to 1613; and finally he settled on 1610–11. Hunter assigned it to about 1605."

See also

External links

William Shakespeare
Plays
Comedies
Tragedies
Histories
Early editions
Related
Poems
Apocrypha
Plays
Poems
Life
and works
Legacy
Institutions
Family
Categories:
Chronology of Shakespeare's plays: Difference between revisions Add topic