Edited by Kevin Gilvary
Published November 2010
After a long gestation period, the DVS is delighted finally to publish its research into the dating
of Shakespeare's plays.
This critical review of the evidence challenges the orthodox scholarly consensus about the order in which
Shakespeare composed his plays and when they were written. It reveals surprising discrepancies in date
comparisions. King John has been placed by scholars in every year of the decade up to 1598 and there are
suggestions that Hamlet's date of 1602 could be put back to 1589.
In this authoritative book, evidence is reviewed methodically to produce a range of dates, supported by
in-depth analysis of aids to dating such as language, historical allusion the testimony of title pages,
as well as works by other authors including Palladis Tamia and the Stationers' Register.
In considering Oxfordian dates, the intention is not to prove the Earl of Oxford was the author but to
demonstrate the possibility of a range of earlier dates for each of the 36 plays in the First Folio,
and four other plays which have been attributed to Shakespeare.
Kevin Gilvary has a BA and MA from the University of Southampton and is currently a research student at Brunel
University. He has taught in Canada, South America, and Hampshire.
To order, please visit the DVS Publications page.
Synopsis
Download as pdf
When did Shakespeare write his plays ?
There is, apparently, a scholarly consensus about the order and dates of Shakespeare's plays. Yet,
there is no contemporary evidence to date any play. Close comparison of the "scholarly consensus"
shows many surprising discrepancies, e.g., in the dating of King John (any year between 1588 and 1598),
Love's Labour's Lost (some time between 1589 and 1598) and Hamlet (1589-1602).
Dating Shakespeare's Plays considers not only the evidence for dating every play but also every argument
used in support of a preferred date. Each play is considered in its own chapter in relation to:
Publication data (Stationers' Register, title pages, etc.)
Performance data (Revels' Accounts, Henslowe's Diary, etc.)
Dates of all sources (both probable and possible)
Allusions to the play (contemporary accounts, diaries, poems etc.)
Starting with the "orthodox dates" proposed by E. K. Chambers in 1930, consideration is given to the
dates suggested by major editors (including the editors of the Arden2 and Arden3 series, the Oxford Shakespeare
and New Cambridge Shakespeare series).
The findings are necessarily inconclusive: it is only possible to establish the date range for each play.
As scholar after scholar has said, the evidence to fix a precise date on any particular play is simply lacking.
This question is crucial to any biography of Shakespeare. After all, how can we assess his development unless
we know fairly precisely when he wrote the works?
Rather surprisingly, we can't date any play to any particular year. We can't even date any play to any period
shorter than five years. Here are a few examples:
Macbeth is normally assigned to the year 1606, the time of the trial of the Gunpowder plotters, due to
the references to equivocation; yet equivocation was used in political trials as early as 1581. Apart from that,
there is no references in the play or to the play which can give more precise date than 1587 (the publication
of Holinshed's Chronicles) and 1611 when it was described in performance.
Julius Caesar is normally dated to 1599 when it was apparently witnessed in performance but there is
no evidence as to when the play was composed; we can only say it dates after 1579, since it was based on
North's Plutarch.
This volume considers all the evidence for each individual play in the following sequence:
- a general introduction to the evidence available to help with dating
- a consideration of the uses and limitations of Francis Meres's observations in 1598
- a consideration of the value of metrical and stylistic features
It then volume considers each play in the sequence presented in the First Folio (1623):
- 14 comedies
- 10 histories
- 12 tragedies
In addition, there are further chapters devoted to four plays often ascribed to Shakespeare.
The volume finishes with:
- conclusions and inconclusions
- appendix of eight tables
- a thorough index
Total: 520 pages; 31 illustrations.
What do we mean by "the date of a play"?
The "date" of a play can refer to three possible events: when it was first composed, when it was
first performed or when it was first published. It is important to make careful distinction within the evidence
as to which type of date is indicated.
The "date" of a play may also refer to its first version and, if it was revised by the author, to its
second or subsequent version. Historically, the tendency among scholars has been to assume that the playwright
produced one definitive or archetypal version of each play which was then handed over to the acting companies
and eventually found its way to publication either in a quarto or later in the collection of works known as
the First Folio. More recently, there has been acceptance that the playwright may have produced different
versions of the play, e.g. King Lear, which would all therefore have authorial authority.
The most recent editors of Hamlet for the Arden series accept that the three versions of the play might also have
come from the playwright himself, so by 'the date of a play' we could be referring to possibly NINE different
dates.
Date of Composition
The date of composition is, for most scholars, the most important. But there is no evidence for the date of
composition of any play by Shakespeare. Such a date rests on inferences and argument, often dependent on belief
and speculation.
Date of First Performance
The date of the first performance is also important but there is no evidence for a single première of any
play by Shakespeare. The theatrical records are very fragmentary and only two performances might have been
recorded as premières: Henslowe's Diary applies the prefix "ne" to "harey the vi"
in on 3 March 1592 (but it is not clear which part) and to Titus Andronicus on 23 January 1594. The
note "ne" might mean "newly composed", but could also mean "newly acquired"
or even "newly revised" or possibly be an abbreviation for the theatre at Newington Butts.
Some plays are not mentioned in performance (e.g. Antony & Cleopatra and Coriolanus); for those
plays which are mentioned in performance, it is quite common for orthodox scholars to make two assumptions:
First assumption: that the earliest mentioned performance must have been the première performance. Consider
Cymbeline which is first mentioned by Forman in 1611. Was this the first ever performance?
Second assumption: that the first mention of a performance must indicate that the play had only just been composed.
Various questions arise: firstly, did Forman witness the first ever performance of Cymbeline or of
A Winter's Tale? Secondly, were these plays newly composed? It is usual to assume the answer "yes"
to both these questions but other possibilities exist. Forman himself notes a performance of Macbeth
(which he dates to 1610 but is usually taken to refer to 1611). Forman's is the earliest reference to the
Scottish play yet no editor proposes that Macbeth was newly composed when Forman saw it; most editors opt
for a date in 1606 but some have accepted that it could have been earlier (or later).
Date of First Publication
The date of first publication is not normally problematic and often combines an entry in the Stationers' Register
with the bibliographic information on the title page.
Third assumption: that the first publication must indicate that the play had only just been composed; eg, it is
taken for granted that Richard II was composed shortly before its registration in 1597.
This assumption is again open to doubt: several plays listed by Meres in 1598 (e.g. The Two Gentlemen of
Verona) were not published for another 25 years until the First Folio (1623).
Conclusion
In conclusion to each chapter, the narrowest possible date range is given, noting that there is no firm evidence
to assign any play to any particular year. All attempts to assign the plays of Shakespeare to a precise date
are conjectural. From this, further points are developed in the section concluding the book as a whole.
Types of Evidence
External
External evidence consists of contemporary references outside the play itself and may be considered in eight ways:
- Allusions to the author writing a play - there are no allusions to Shakespeare that can indicate
when he composed any play.
- Dated manuscripts
- Correspondence concerning literary matters
- Revels Accounts
- Record of Payment for plays
- Francis Meres, 1598
- Stationers' Register
- Title pages
Internal
Internal evidence comes from within the plays themselves and may be considered in three further ways:
- Sources
- Allusions to other texts
- Allusions to contemporary events and people
The introduction deals with these matters in detail.
Oxfordian dating of Shakespeare's Plays
The main challenge to the "orthodox" dating has been made by Oxfordians, who maintain the hypothesis
that the works attributed to William Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (1550 - 1604).
Oxford's death in 1604 has usually been offered as a counter-argument to his candidacy as author of the great
canon. After all, "everybody knows" that Macbeth was written in 1606, Antony & Cleopatra
in 1608 and The Tempest in 1610-11.
Strangely enough, we have no such precise dates. It is possible that they may have been written at the times
usually suggested, but there is no evidence. The Scottish play might refer to James I after he became king of
England in 1603, but then again it might not. Antony and Cleopatra might have been written shortly after
it was entered into the Stationers' Register - but then again it might not. The Tempest might refer to
events surrounding the voyages to Virginia, but the references are very tenuous and might refer to other
accounts.
J. T. Looney in Shakespeare Identified (1920) was the first to propose Oxford as a candidate for authorship
of the Shakespeare canon and noted that documentary evidence for post 1604 composition was lacking. Eva Turner
Clark, in Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare's Plays (1931, reprinted 1974) developed an alternative and
earlier chronology for the composition of the plays using the detailed records reported by E. K. Chambers'
The Elizabethan Stage (1923). Clark identified many anonymous plays in the 1570s and 1580s with early work
by Oxford. Many of Clark's observations are recorded in the relevant sections for each play. For Oxford's life,
reference has been made to Alan Nelson's biography Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl
of Oxford (2003).
The ultimate purpose of Dating Shakespeare's Plays is not to establish (or reject) Oxford's candidacy for
authorship but to examine objectively the range of possible dates for each play.
Acknowledgement
The challenge to write a comprehensive review of the evidence for dating all of Shakespeare's plays was
issued many years ago and has involved many people, with special appreciation to:
- Arthur Challoner, who first issued the challenge to members of the De Vere Society to investigate whether
Shakespeare must have written The Tempest in 1610-11 and Macbeth in 1606. Arthur felt that these
were possible dates among a much wider range of possibilities,
- Christopher Dams, who invited individual members of the De Vere Society to examine a play afresh as to
the dates of composition. He laid down the strict guidelines which have been followed in this work and insisted
on clear distinctions between contemporary records, inferences from these records and outright speculation,
- Philip Johnson, who passed on many valuable insights from his editing of the comedies before his untimely
death in August 2007,
- Eddi Jolly who in reading every chapter, has made many valuable suggestions in addition to her own
excellent contributions,
- Aliyah Norrish of Jesus College, Oxford, who painstakingly read each chapter and contributed numerous
helpful ideas,
- Elizabeth Imlay for her thorough copy-editing,
- Amanda Helm for her type-setting and highly valued advice,
- The Staff at Brunel University Library for their unfailing help,
- Dr William Leahy for his critical encouragement throughout.
Each contributor retains the responsibility for the evaluations presented in each chapter. As editor, I remain
responsible for such factual errors as may have escaped my attention.
Contributors
- Barbara Burris is an independent American researcher, who shared many of her ideas on the dating of
The Merry Wives of Windsor.
- Arthur M. Challinor is a published author, both under his own name and under the pseudonym used here.
He has taught at two universities, including a spell as head of department, and later worked as a government
adviser. His various writings include a history of the authorship controversy since 1900. He was the first to
challenge the De Vere Society to investigate the basis for dating the plays of Shakespeare, suggesting many
ideas on the dating of The Tempest.
- Derran Charlton has researched many archives and other primary sources at various locations. He has
lectured frequently on his work in the United Kingdom, Europe and the USA. He contributed to the chapters on
Love's Labour's Lost and Titus Andronicus.
- Robert Detobel is an independent researcher, based in Germany, who made important contributions
about the dating of Cymbeline.
- Alistair Everitt an independent researcher based in London, contributed the section on King Lear.
- Kevin Gilvary gained a BA and an MA in Classics and an MA in Applied Linguistics from the University
of Southampton. He has taught in Vancouver, Canada, in Lima, Peru, and at Barton Peveril College in Hampshire.
He is a research student at Brunel University and has contributed chapters in all sections.
- Charlotte (‘Sally’) Hazelton combines interests in literature (especially drama) with
psychology. After completing her degree in English Literature she trained as a psychotherapist, making a
special study of Freud's Oxfordian view of Shakespeare. She now works as a psychotherapist and lecturer in
London. She wrote the sections on The Comedy of Errors and Macbeth.
- Stephanie Hopkins Hughes is an artist and writer who has spent many years researching the authorship
question. Her primary focus has been on the life of Edward de Vere and the period 1588 - 1595, when the London
commercial theatre and publishing industry first emerged. Stephanie was for a long time the editor of
The Oxfordian, an annual journal of Elizabethan research published by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
She has lectured and written extensively including a book on Oxford's education. She contributed the section on
The Taming of the Shrew.
- Ramón Jiménez has published many articles about Shakespearean Authorship. He contributed
the appendix about the authorship and date of The Famous Victories of Henry V.
- Philip Johnson graduated at London University's Kings College, where his lecturers included Professor
Geoffrey Bullough, who was then producing his volumes on Shakespeare's source materials. Philip was a lecturer
at Barton Peveril College in Hampshire from 1980 to his retirement in 2004. Before he died in 2007, he had begun
to edit the comedies, contributing chapters on Measure for Measure and Much Ado About Nothing.
- Eddi Jolly graduated in English Literature at Southampton University. Like Philip Johnson, she was a
lecturer for over twenty years at Barton Peveril College in Hampshire. Her interests have included papers
on Burghley's library and Hamlet.
- Richard Malim was a solicitor for many years at a law firm in Poole, Dorset. Since his retirement, he
has spent much time researching the Authorship Question. He edited a collection of essays under the title
Great Oxford (2004).
- Alex McNeil is a graduate of Yale University and Boston Law School. He has served as a court administrator
of the Massachusetts Appeals Court since 1974. An Oxfordian since 1992, he is the author of a reference book
on American television: Total Television: a comprehensive guide to programming, four editions of
which have been published by Penguin Books (USA) since 1980.
- Dottore Noemi Magri was born in Mantova, Italy, where she still lives. A keen interest in Shakespearean
authorship dates back to her school years. Her doctoral thesis involved a new critical edition of Sir Philip
Sidney's Astrophel and Stella on the basis of the first four editions of his sonnets. She has worked
in a legal office, as a teacher and teacher trainer, has published short stories, one of which won the
Cervantes prize, and carried out invaluable research in Italy on the Italian plays.
- Joe Peel is an independent American scholar who contributed the section on The Merchant of Venice.
- Marion Peel is an English Literature graduate and was an English teacher for twenty years. Her Masters
degree is in English in Education. Her personal interests are in Tudor history, genealogy and etymology.
Questions asked by an A level pupil who had seen an interview with Charlton Ogburn Junior resulted in her
resolving to research the subject. The teaching has ceased but the research goes on. She contributed to the
section on Twelfth Night.
- Dr John Rollett, a physicist by training, has brought his scientific acumen to authorship questions and
is sceptical about Oxfordian claims. He contributed the article on Antony and Cleopatra.
- Dr Roger Stritmatter has made a most important contribution to the Oxfordian case with his doctoral
dissertation on The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning
and Historical Consequence. He has had many articles published on the dating of Shakespeare's plays,
including recently in the Review of English Studies and in Critical Survey on The Tempest.
He contributed the chapter on A Midsummer Night's Dream.
- Lee Tudor-Pole is an independent researcher who contributed ideas to the dating of Henry VIII.
The De Vere Society
(registered charity No. 297855) has been formed as a result of interest in the works of Shakespeare and the
question of their authorship. Members review critically evidence for authorship and are interested in all
aspects of composition, performance and publication, and the plays' possible audience. Information about the
De Vere Society and its activities can be found on its website, www.deveresociety.co.uk, and new members are
always welcome.
Kevin Gilvary,
Brunel University
Dating Shakespeare's Plays: A Critical Review of the Evidence
Edited by Kevin Gilvary
Publisher: Parapress, Tunbridge Wells, Kent
Tel / fax 01892 512118
www.parapress.co.uk
Publication date: November 2010
520 pages
Cost £15
