William Shakespeare, The Tragedie of Coriolanus, Appendix
Horace Howard Furness, Jr., A. B.; Litt. D., Ed.

Garnett

“ Although the main current of tradition respecting Shakespeare may be accepted as throwing real light on Shakespeare the man, it contributes hardly anything to illustrate Shakespeare the author. It is chiefly derived from Stratford, and but few of the people of Stratford can ever have seen his plays performed, nor can it be thought that First Folios were at any time very common among them. If the local tradition can tell us anything about the dramas, it must be on some point that brings these into connection with the poet's native place, as in the tradition preserved by the Rev. John Ward, Vicar of Stratford in the latter part of the seventeenth century, that Shakespeare when living at New Place regularly supplied the London stage with two plays a year.

The existence of a tradition to this effect is unquestionable. It comes to us from the man of all others most likely to have heard it, and least likely to have invented or disfigured it. But its authenticity is another matter. It is not, and it hardly could be, confirmed by any external testimony. The only way of testing it is to enquire whether it agrees with what we already know respecting the dramatic productiveness of Shakespeare's latter years; and whether it does or does not involve any chronological impossibilities.

As respects the first point, the tradition is entirely in harmony with a remark- able phenomenon attending Shakespeare's later dramatic work which has not yet attracted sufficient attention. This is the extent to which he endeavours to diminish the labour of dramatic composition. In every play known with cer- tainty to have belonged to his later period, The Winter's Tale only excepted, re- course is had to some device tending to save trouble to the author. In Troilus and Cressida, as now generally admitted, he revives a former play. The Tempest is much the shortest of his dramas. Parts of Cymbeline seem to be from another hand. In Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus he follows Plutarch, and, although with exquisite judgment, transcribes freely from his author. In Pericles and Timon he either adapts an old play, completes the work of a contemporary, or hands his own drafts over to be pieced out by another. In Henry the Eighth and The Two Noble Kinsmen (if he had any hand in the latter) he collaborates with Fletcher. Except for the use of Plutarch in Julius Caelig;sar, and of Holinshed in the English historical plays, there is no trace in the earlier works of the procedure which we find so nearly universal in the later.

The causes of this comparative slackness are in some measure obvious. Shake- speare had had enough of literary distinction; his share in his theatre made him independent of the proceeds of his pen; living more and more at Stratford he was gradually losing touch with the stage, and becoming a country gentleman. The addition of another reason may seem a transgression of Newton's injunction not to assign more causes than are necessary to explain the phenomena. It must, nevertheless, be allowed that the tradition reported by Ward fits in admirably with the acknowledged cause for resort to extraneous aid. It would further solve the question why, when so many motives co-operated to render him indiffer- ent to the stage, Shakespeare did not retire from it, but, so far as regards the number of his pieces, evinced even more fertility than at any previous epoch. The obligation he had contracted would pull both ways. Its fulfilment would sometimes be irksome, but would always be necessary. The natural resource would be the employment of any device by which the dramatist's labour might be diminished without lowering the standard of his art. A close analogy would be the conduct of Pope when, finding that no version of the Odyssey could enhance the fame he had won by the Iliad, he turned a portion of the work over to Fenton and Broome.

Ward's tradition, therefore, seems to harmonise with indubitable facts, and it does not require us to modify our estimate either of Shakespeare or of his plays in the smallest degree, except as regards chronology. The labour-saving tendency of his later period, although sufficient attention has not been paid to it, must be recognised as undeniable; and an obligation to produce two plays a year with or without the goodwill of Minerva affords as plausible a way of accounting for it as can be conceived.

A few words may be said about Coriolanus, the present writer in the first edition of his essay on The Tempest having hazarded the opinion that it might be as late as 1614. The arguments of Professor Brandes have convinced him that this theory is untenable, while at the same time he must continue to think that the drama has a distinct political tendency, bespeaking its production at a period of political excitement. Such excitement prevailed during the contests between James I. and his Parliament in 1610 and 1611, terminated by the dissolution in February of the latter year. The play, as Brandes points out, is strongly antidemocratic, and breathes exactly the spirit with which such a breach between the executive and legislative authorities might be expected to inspire a conservative statesman. Brandes places it in 1608, but to the present writer the difference in spirit and execution seems to forbid such close juxtaposition with Antony and Cleopatra, which we know to have been produced in or about that year.

It may be that in this and other determinations of date criticism has relied too exclusively upon the metrical test, which will seem to many conclusive as regards the period of Othello and Macbeth as well as that of Coriolanus. This test is indeed a most important element in the question of chronology, but is itself sub- ject to limitation. It is too often forgotten that the preponderance of single or double endings is partly governed by the character of the play. The double ending, communicating a buoyant elasticity to the verse in virtue of the catalectic syllable, is more appropriate to lively spirits and enthusiastic romance; while the close ending rather befits tragic passion and solemn pathos. The character, therefore, of most of Shakespeare's later compositions—Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, The Tempest—is sufficient reason for the growing fondness for double endings which they display, while he would instinctively recur to a stricter system of versi- fication when he had to deal with a Macbeth or a Coriolanus.

We conclude, therefore, that the tradition recorded by Ward is intrinsically probable, that it explains some remarkable phenomena connected with Shake- speare's later plays, and that it might very well be accepted if we could see our way to bring the dates of Othello and Macbeth a few years lower. Quite inde- pendently of Ward's tradition there is, we think, sufficient reason for reconsidering the accepted chronology of these dramas, although it may never be possible to arrive at an entirely satisfactory solution of the question. Assuming provisionally that Ward is to be relied upon, and that Shakespeare did for some time contribute to the stage at the rate of two plays a year, we append a table showing the most probable order of their production:

1607	1608	1609	161O	1611
Pericles. Antony and Cleopatra.	Timon of Athens. Othello.	Troilus and Cressida (revival). Macbeth.	Cymbeline. Winter's Tale.	Coriolanus. Two Noble Kinsmen (?).

Here Shakespeare's regular activity as a writer for the stage terminates. In 1613 he produced The Tempest and King Henry VIII., but both are occasional pieces. The Tempest is entirely from his pen, but his share in Henry VIII. is not considerable.

”

Garnett (Jahrbuch, 1901, p. 209)