errors renders it more than probable that Shakspere did not see the proofs of his printed works, the copy of that tragedy, both of the first and second edition, was derived from the author. We have taken some pains to investigate this subject with reference to all the other plays (fifteen in number), published before the folio of 1623; and we have come to the conclusion that, with five exceptions, all these plays were published upon some distinct arrangement either with the author, or with the proprietors of the theatres to whom the copies were delivered by the author; and that, with these exceptions, the common belief that they were furnished clandestinely to the publishers by persons connected with the theatres, or published from a short-hand copy, has no foundation. The question involves some very interesting circumstances, and we therefore make no apology for discussing it at some length.*

As a foundation for our inquiry we will present our readers with a tabular arrangement of all the plays published before the fulio of 1623, according to the date of their publication,—with the dates of their entries at Stationers' Hall, and the names of the first publishers. In this statement we propose to omit all consideration of the doubtful plays of Pericles and Titus Andronicus, and of the three parts of Henry VI.

The editors of the first folio, in their preface, use these words: "Before, you were abused with divers stolen and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealths of injurious impostors that exposed them." It is necessary that we should examine to which of the fifteen plays published before the folio this strong charge applies. It has been thought to involve a sweeping condemnation of all the previous editions;—but this is not so: it applies only to "divers stolen and surreptitious copies." We believe that it does not apply to the first nine of the plays included in the list which we have just given. Upon the quarto editions of those plays, the text of the folio, with slight alterations, is unquestionably founded. Verbal corrections, and in one or two cases additions and omissions, are found in the folio;-but they are only such as an author, having his printed works before him during at least sixteen years, would naturally make. The most considerable additions are to the Second Part of Henry IV.-These nine plays do not furnish the slightest internal evidence of appearing to be printed from an imperfect copy. Further, in seven out of the nine cases, the proprietary interest of the original publishers of these plays never lapses. Andrew and William Wise, in connexion with William Apsley, are the original publishers of Richard II., Richard III., the two Parts of Henry IV., and Much Ado about Nothing; they, and their assign or partner, Matthew Law, print many editions of the historical plays, from 1597 to 1622; and then Apsley becomes a proprietor of the folio, to which his name is affixed as one of the publishers. Cuthbert Burby is the original publisher of the " augmented" Romeo and Juliet, and of Love's Labour's Lost; in 1607 he assigns his interest to John Smethwick: they publish several editions of Romeo

We are indebted for several valuable suggestions connected with this inquiry, to the late Mr. Thomas Rodd, who united to the most accurate professional knowledge as a bookseller, an intimate acquaintance with our early literature, and with that of the times of Shakspere, especially. + We of course speak of the "corrected and augmented" edition of Romeo and Juliet.

and Juliet, from 1599 to 1609; and Smethwick finally becomes a proprietor also of the folio of 1623. With regard to the Merchant of Venice, and Midsummer Night's Dream, we cannot trace the proprietary interest of their original publishers down to the publication of the folio, by any entries in the books of the Stationers' Company.* Of each of these plays there were also editions in 1600, but none after;-one of each bearing the name of a publisher, and the other of a printer, J. Roberts. The tenth and eleventh plays on our list,-Henry V., and the Merry Wives of Windsor-we have no doubt were piracies;-they distinctly belong to the class of "stolen and surreptitious copies " We have already pointed out the vast additions which we find in the folio copy of Henry V.-all the choruses, the whole of the first Scene of Act I., and some of the most spirited speeches. The entire play is indeed recast; and yet, although it is perfectly evident from the passage in the chorus to the fifth Act, referring to

"the general of our gracious empress As in good time he may) from Ireland coming,"

that the choruses were introduced in 1599, they appear not in the first edition of 1600, nor in the second of 1602, nor in the third of 1608. There can be no question, we think, that the original play of Henry V., as exhibited in these quartos, was a hasty sketch, afterwards worked up into the perfect form in which we now find it; that the piratical publishers had obtained a copy of that sketch, but that they were effectually prevented obtaining a copy with the additions and amendments. This play was entered at Stationers' Hall, by Thomas Pavier, in 1600; was published in its imperfect state by Thomas Millington and John Busby, in that year; and subsequently twice republished by Thomas Pavier. This Thomas Pavier published no other of Shakspere's plays; but it is remarkable that he published as Shakspere's, Sir John Oldcastle, and the Yorkshire tragedy;— and he also published, in 1619, 'The whole Contention between the two famous Houses, Lancaster. and York'-as 'written by William Shakespeare,'-but which edition does not contain our poet's supposed improvements in the second and third Parts of Henry VI., which first appeared in the folio. The Merry Wives of Windsor stands precisely on the same ground. The first edition of Arthur Johnson in 1602, and a subsequent edition of 1619, present only the sketch of the play as we now have it from the folio. The improvements and additions in this case are as numerous and important as in the Henry V. But they were never suffered to be published till they appeared in the folio. Busby, who appears as one of the publishers of the first Henry V., is the person who first enters the Merry Wives of Windsor at Stationers' Hall. He was probably the jackall who pointed out what was worth preying upon. We find him entering Lear in 1607,-of which presently.

Hamlet differs from the two preceding instances, from a genuine copy having been brought out immediately after the appearance of what was most probably a piratical one. The unique first edition in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire (reprinted in 1825) is, like Henry V. and the Merry Wives of Windsor, a sketch as compared with the finished play. It was published by N. L. (Nicholas Ling) and John Trundell, in 1603; but in 1604 an edition was published by N. Landure, "newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect coppie." This is the play, with very slight variations, as we now possess it; and this edition was reprinted four times in Shakspere's life, having become the property of John Smethwick, who, as we have mentioned, became one of the publishers of the folio.

Lear was published by Nathaniel Butter in 1608, and in that year he produced three editions. It was in all likelihood piratical; and was probably suppressed, -for no future edition appears till that of the folio, while Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet, are constantly reprinted. Butter was undoubtedly not a publisher authorized by Shakspere; for he printed, in 1605, 'The London Prodigal,'- -one of the plays fraudulently ascribed to our poet. Butter's edition of Lear is however a correct one. He must have had a genuine copy.

Troilus and Cressida, published by R. Bonian and H. Walley, in 1609, though a genuine copy is an acknowledged piracy. The preface of the editor is highly laudatory to the poet. We

shall more particularly notice the acknowledgment of the piracy, in a subsequent paragraph.

The books of the Stationers' Company were examined by Steevens, and he transcribed and published all the entries which could bear upon the works of Shakspere; but he made no deductions from the facts.

Othello, published in 1622, is a genuine copy. It was probably authorized by the possessors of the copy after Shakspere's death.

On the publication of the folio of 1623, the publishers of that collected edition entered in the books of the Stationers' Company their claim to "Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories and Tragedies, so many of the said copies as are not formerly entered to other men,” viz. :—

In the above list of plays then unpublished, which should also have included Taming of the Shrew and King John, we have only three mentioned which were unquestionably written before 1603, the date of the publication of Hamlet, viz.-The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Comedy of Errors, and Henry VI. Part III. We would ask, then, is it not in the highest degree remarkable that of the plays which were written by Shakspere after 1603, only two (Lear, and Troilus and Cressida) were published during his lifetime; while of all the undoubted plays written before 1603, only three (Two Gentlemen of Verona, Comedy of Errors, King John) were not published? Could this be accident? Malone assigns as a reason for this remarkable circumstance that "if we suppose him to have written for the stage during a period of twenty years, those pieces which were produced in the latter part of that period were less likely to pass through the press in his lifetime, as the curiosity of the public had not been so long engaged by them as by his early compositions." This reasoning is singularly erroneous. We see by the tabular list that not a single play was printed before 1597, although in 1598, according to Meres's list, Shakspere had produced at least eleven plays; that three were printed in 1597, two in 1598, five in 1600, only one in 1602, and only one in 1603. What does this circumstance show but that his reputation had become so great in 1600, that all the plays he had then written were published, except three;-and that the public demand was so considerable that five distinct plays were published in one year. Further, nearly all these plays then first published were reprinted, again and again, before the poet's death. Of Richard II. there are four quarto editions; of Richard III., four; of Romeo and Juliet, four; of Henry IV. Part I., five; of Henry IV. Part II., two; of Henry V., three; of the Merchant of Venice, two; of Midsummer Night's Dream, two; of the Merry Wives, two; of Hamlet, five. Here was abundant encouragement to publish the more important plays which were written after 1603-the master-pieces of the great author. Why, then, were they not published? The preface to the "stolen" Troilus and Cressida gives the explanation. The copy of that play is acknowledged by the editor to have been obtained by some artifice. He says, in his preface, "thank fortune for the scape it hath made amongst you; since, by the grand possessors' wills, I believe you should have pray'd for them rather than been pray'd." It is difficult to understand this clearly; but we learn that the copy had an escape from some powerful possessors. It appears to us that these possessors were powerful enough to prevent a single copy of any one of the plays which Shakspere produced in his "noon of fame," with the exception of Troilus and Cressida, and Lear, being printed till after his death; and that between his death in 1616, and the publication of the folio of 1623, they continued the exercise of their power, so as to allow only one edition of one play, which had not been printed in his lifetime, (Othello,) to appear. The clear deduction from this statement of facts is,

that the original publication of the fourteen plays published in Shakspere's lifetime was, with the exceptions we have pointed out, authorized by some power having the right to prevent the publication; – that after 1603 till the publication of the folio, that right was not infringed or conceded, except in three instances. Is it not clear that all this was the effect of arrangement;-that up to 1603, the consent to publish was given;-and that after 1603, till 1623, it was withheld effectually, except in three solitary instances, one of which is an undoubted piracy? What are we to infer? Our belief is that the poet derived a profit from the publication of his works, from 1597 till 1603; -but that he then made an arrangement with the "great possessors," the proprietors of the Globe Theatre (of which he himself was one of the chief proprietors), by which he relinquished this profit to give them an absolute monopoly in his later and most important productions.

COSTUME.

THE civil costume of the reign of Henry V. seems to have differed in no very material degree from that of the reigns of Henry IV. and Richard II.

The illuminated MSS., and other authorities of this period, present us with the same long and short gowns, each with extravagantly large sleeves, almost trailing on the ground and escalloped at the edges. They are generally at this period, however, painted of a different colour to the body of the garment, and were, probably, separate articles of dress (as we find them in the next century), to be changed at pleasure. Chaperons with long tippets, tights — hose, and pointed shoes or half-boots.

-

For the dress of the sovereign himself, we have but slender authority. His mutilated effigy in Westminster Abbey represents him in the dalmatic, cope, and mantle, of royalty; differing only from those of preceding sovereigns in their lack of all ornaments or embroidery. An illuminated MS., in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, has a representation of Henry seated on his throne (which is powdered with the letter S.), not in his robes, although crowned, but in a dress of the time, with a curious girdle and collar. There are two or three portraits of Henry, on wood, in the royal and other collections, each bearing a suspicious likeness to the other, and neither authenticated; although from one of them Mr. Vertue copied the head engraved for the History of England, and which has been received as the likeness of Henry from that period.

From an anecdote in 'Monstrelet's Chronicles,' it would seem, that one peculiarity of Henry's ordinary attire was, his attachment to the half-boots we have mentioned as in fashion at this time. In the old English poem on the Siege of Rouen, A.D. 1418, Henry is described as dressed in black damask, with a peytrelle (poitral) of gold hanging about his neck, a rich collar, probably such as he is represented with in the illumination above mentioned, and which might very properly be called a "poitral,” from its similarity to the ornamental piece of horse-furniture so named at this period.

A "pendaunte" is said also to have hung behind him down to the earth, "it was so long: " but whether the author meant by that, any ornament of his dress, or a pennon," or streamer, carried behind him, is not clear. In favour of the former supposition, however, we find that, a few years later (A.D. 1432), the Lord Mayor of London is described as wearing "a baldrick of gold about his neck, trailing down behind.

The great characteristic of this reign is the close-cropping of the hair round above the ears, in contra-distinction to the fashion of the last century; and the equally close-shaving of the chin. Beards being worn only by aged personages, and mustachoes but rarely, even by military men: the king is always represented without them.

Of the Dukes of Gloster and Bedford, and the Earl of Warwick, the representations that exist are of a later date; they will be given with the Parts of Henry VI.

Of the Duke of Exeter (Thomas Beaufort, son of John of Gaunt,) and the Duke of York (the Aumerle of Richard II.), we know no representation.

The Earl of Westmoreland has been already engraved in the first Part of King Henry IV.

In the armour of this period there are many and striking novelties. It was completely of plate. Even the camail, or chain neck-piece, was superseded or covered by the gorget, or hausse col of steel. A fine specimen of the armour of this time exists on the effigy of Michael de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (who was killed at the siege of Harfleur), in Wingfield Church, Suffolk.

The jupon, with its military girdle, and the loose surcoat of arms, were both occasionally worn; and, in many instances, were furnished with long hanging sleeves, indented at the edges like those of the robes (vide our engraving of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, from his seal in 'Olivarius Vredius's History of the Counts of Flanders,' and of Henry V., from the carvings of an oaken chest in York Cathedral). Sometimes the sleeves only are seen with the armour; and it is then difficult to ascertain whether, in that case, the breast and back plates cover the rest of the garment, or whether they (the sleeves) are separate articles fastened to the shoulders. Cloaks, with escalloped edges, were also worn with armour at this period (vide the figure of Thomas Montacute, Earl of Salisbury). Two circular or shield-shaped plates, called pallettes, were sometimes fastened in front by aiguillettes, so as to protect the arm-pits (vide same figure, and the engraving from an illumination, representing Henry V. being armed by his esquires). St. Remy, a writer who was present at the battle of Agincourt, describes Henry, at break of day, hearing mass in all his armour, excepting that for his head and his cote d'armes (i. e. emblazoned surcoat or jupon). After mass had been said, they brought him the armour for his head, which was a very handsome bascinet a barriere (query baviere), upon which he had a very rich crown of gold (a description and valuation of "la couronne d'Or pur le Bacinet," garnished with rubies, sapphires, and pearls, to the amount of £679 58., is to be seen in the Rolls of Parliament, vol. iv. p. 215), circled like an imperial crown query arched. Henry IV. is said, by Froissart, to have been crowned with a diadem "archée en croix;" the earliest mention of an arched crown in England that we have met with).

Elmham, another contemporary historian, says, "Now the king was clad in secure and very bright armour: he wore, also, on his head, a helmet, with a large splendid crest, and a crown of gold and jewels; and, on his body, a surcoat with the arms of England and France, from which a celestial splendour issued; on the one side, from three golden flowers, planted in an azure-field (Henry V. altered the arms of France, in the English shield, from semi of fleurs-de-lys to three fleurs-de-lys, Charles VI. of France having done so previously), on the other, from three golden leopards sporting in a ruby field." By a large splendid crest may be meant, either the royal heraldic crest of England, the lion passant guardant (as the Duke of Burgundy is represented with his heraldic crest, a fleur-de-lys on his bascinet), or a magnificent plume of feathers,-that elegant and chivalric decoration, for the first time after the conquest, appearing in this reign. It was called the panache; and knights are said to have worn three or more feathers, esquires only one but we have no positive authority for the latter assertion; and the number would seem to have been a matter of fancy. Robert Chamberlayne, the king's esquire, is represented with two feathers issuing from the apex of the bascinet. He wears an embroidered jupon and the military belt. With respect to the crown round Henry's bascinet,—it was twice struck and injured by the blows of his enemies. The Duke of Alençon struck off part of it with his battle-axe; and one of the points or flowers was cut off by a French esquire, who, with seventeen others, swore to perform some such feat, or perish.

The helmet of Henry V., suspended over his tomb in Westminster Abbey, is a tilting helmetnot the bascinet a baviere (vizored or beavered bascinet), which was the war-helmet of the time (see those of Louis, Duke of Bourbon, whose tilting helmet is carried by an esquire behind him; and of John, Duke of Burgundy). The shield and saddle which nang near it, may, according to the tradition, have been really used by him at Agincourt.

The English archers at the battle of Agincourt were, for the most part (according to Monstrelet), without armour, and in jackets, with their hose loose, and hatchets, or swords, hanging to their girdles. Some, indeed, were barefooted, and without hats or caps; and, St. Remy says, they were dressed in pourpoints (stitched or quilted jackets); and adds, that some wore caps of boiled leather (the famous cuir bouilli), or of wicker-work, crossed over with iron. In the army of Henry V. at Rouen, there were several bodies of Irish, of whom, says Monstrelet, the greatest part had one leg and foot quite naked. They were armed with targets, short javelins, and a strange sort of knife (the skein).

The French men-at-arms, engaged at Agincourt, are described as being armed in long coats of steel reaching to their knees (the taces introduced at this period, vide figures of the Earls of Salisbury and Suffolk), below which was armour for their legs, and above, white harness (i. e. armour of polished plate, so called in contra-distinction to mail), and bascinets with camails (chain neckpieces).