I Introduction
1 Selma Guttman, The Foreign Sources of Shakespeare’s Works (1947); Gordon R. Smith, A Classified Shakespeare Bibliography, 1936–1958 (1963); John W. Velz, Shakespeare and the Classical Tradition (1968).
2 William Shakespeare’s Petty School (1943); William Shakespeare’s Small Latine and Lesse Greeke (1944); On the Literary Genetics of Shakespeare’s Poems and Sonnets (1950).
3 J. Dover Wilson, ‘Shakespeare’s “Small Latin” – How Much?’, SS 10 (1957), 12 ff.; F. P. Wilson, ‘Shakespeare’s Reading’, SS 3 (1950), 14 ff.; J. A. K. Thomson, Shakespeare and the Classics (1952); G. K. Hunter, Shakespeare’s Reading’ in A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies, ed. K. Muir and S. Schoenbaum (1971), 55 ff.
4 William Beeston, who declared that Shakespeare had been a schoolmaster in the country (E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare (1930), II. 254).
5 J. Dover Wilson, op. cit. But Ezra Pound preferred Golding to Milton.
6 ibid.
7 ibid.
8 Studies in Elizabethan Drama (1955), 13 ff.
9 Propertius, II. xii. 1–8.
10 Baldwin, I. 649.
11 J. A. K. Thomson, op. cit., 32–3.
12 Odes, III. 7, 29–30.
13 E. I. Fripp, Shakespeare Man and Artist (1938), 109–10.
14 Cf. 20, 304 post.
15 Cf. 12 post.
16 F. McCombie, ‘Hamlet and the “Moriae Encomium”’, SS 27 (1974), 59 ff.
17 Rolf Soellner, NQ (1954), 108–9. See also his article, JEGP, LV (1956), 70.
18 Cf. 211 post.
19 Cf. I. A. Richards, Speculative Instruments (1955), 210.
20 J. Dover Wilson in Shakespeare’s Hand in ‘Sir Thomas More’ (1923), 128–9.
21 Shakespeare here misread North’s translation.
22 Cf. K. Muir, ‘The Dramatic Function of Anachronism’, PLPL (1951), 529 ff.
23 S. Schoenbaum, op. cit., 8.
24 Cf. F. Yates, A Study of Love’s Labour’s Lost (1936), 50 ff; J. W. Lever, SS 6, 79 ff.
25 See below, pp. 132, 183.
26 Cf. G. C. Taylor, Shakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne (1925).
27 Cf. 186 post.
28 Cf. 141 post.
29 Cf. John E. Hankins, Shakespeare’s Derived Imagery (1953).
30 Cf. King Lear, ed. K. Muir, IV. ii. 49–5on., and F. P. Wilson, n. 3 ante.
31 Cf. 169 post.
32 Cf. 187 post.
33 Cf. 135 post.
34 Cf. J. L. Lowes, The Road to Xanadu (1927), passim.
35 Shakespeare’s Biblical Knowledge (1935).
36 Thomas Carter, Shakespeare and Holy Scripture (1905).
37 A Specimen of a Commentary, ed. A. Over and M. Bell (1967), 203–4.
38 A. Hart, Shakespeare and the Homilies (1934), 9–77
39 E. I. Fripp, Shakespeare Studies (1930), 98–128.
40 Harold Brooks has provided much information on this subject.
41 Cf. E. Prosser, SSt I (1965), 261–4; R. Ellrodt, ‘Selfconsciousness in Montaigne and Shakespeare’, SS 28(1975), 37 ff.
42 Shakespeare and the Arch-Priest Controversy (1975).
43 J. Isaacs, Shakespeare’s Earliest Years in the Theatre (1953).
44 Cf. 15, 275 post.
45 It has recently been suggested by Warren B. Austin (A Computer-Aided Technique for Stylistic Discrimination, 1969) that the pamphlet was written by Chettle.
46 Cf. K. Muir in Essays on Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Drama, ed. R. Hosley (1963), 45 ff.
47 K. Muir and S. O’Loughlin, The Voyage to Illyria (1937), 49. Perhaps my collaborator was responsible for this passage.
48 Cf. J. C. Maxwell’s note in King Lear, ed. Muir, n. iv. 119.
49 F. Yates, op. cit., passim.
50 Cf. A. Davenport, NQ (1953), 371–4; G. B. Evans, ibid., 377–8.
51 Cf. ‘what drugs, what sorceries, what oiles’ (Nashe, ed. McKerrow, I. 180) and Oth., I. iii. 90–1. ‘Enuie is a Crocodile that weepes when he kils, and fights with none but he feeds on … this … monster (Nashe, I. 184) and Oth., III. iii. 169–71.
52 1 Henry IV, II. iv. 368.
53 Cf. 63 post.
54 A. Thaler, Shakespeare and Sir Philip Sidney (1947).
55 K. Muir and J. F. Danby, NQ (1950), 49–51; F. Pyle, MLR, XLIII (1948), 449 ff.
56 Cf. 45 post.
57 Cf. 227 post.
58 Cf. 229 post.
59 Cf. 47 ff. post.
60 Cf. 208 post.
61 But cf. W. B. C. Watkins, Shakespeare and Spenser (1950), and Abbie F. Potts, Shakespeare and ‘The Faerie Queene’ (1958).
62 Cf. I. Ribner, NQ (1952), 244–6; J. D. Reeves, ibid., 441–2.
63 Ed. McKerrow, II. 140.
64 E. Holmes, Aspects of Elizabethan Imagery (1929), 50.
65 E. A. Fripp, Shakespeare: Man and Artist (1938), 86–7.
66 Fripp, op. cit., 87.
67 Literary Genetics (1950), 133–5.1 have added one detail.
68 Cf. 55 post.
69 Cf. J. L. Jackson, SQ, I (1950), 260 ff.
70 But S. M. Pitcher, The Case for Shakespeare’s Authorship (1961), thinks it was an early play by Shakespeare himself.
II Early Plays
1 THE COMEDY OF ERRORS
1 T. W. Baldwin, Shakespere’s Small Latine (1944), I. 426.
2 Bullough, I. 4.
3 Confessio Amantis; The Patterne of Painfull Adventures.
4 T. W. Baldwin, Shakespere’s Five-Act Structure (1947), 673–4.
5 Bullough, I. 9.
6 Baldwin, Five-Act Structure, 677, 680–1; Bullough, I. 9–10.
7 Bullough, I. 27–8.
8 Q, New Camb. ed. (1922), 77–8, argued that Shakespeare incorporated the work of an earlier dramatist.
9 Five-Act Structure, 665–6. See also Leo Salingar’s account of Shakespeare’s transformation of his sources in Shakespeare and the Traditions of Comedy (1974).
10 W. T. Jewkes, Act-division in Elizabethan and Jacobean Plays 1583–1616 (1958). See also Emrys Jones, Scenic Form in Shakespeare (1971), 67; Henry Snuggs, Shakespeare and Five Acts (1960); and Mark Rose, Shakespearean Design (1972).
11 T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespeare Adapts a Hanging (1931).
2 THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA
1 Bullough, I. 206.
2 E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare, I. 331.
3 René Pruvost, EA (1960), 1–9, discusses the relationship between T.G., T.N., and Gl’Ingannati.
3 THE TAMING OF THE SHREW
1 HLQ, XXVII (1963–4), 289–308. Reprinted in the Signet Shakespeare ed. The following discussion is greatly indebted to this article.
2 Cf. Bullough, I. 109.
3 Hosley, op. cit., 306.
4 op. cit., 296.
5 ibid., 302.
6 ibid., 303.
7 Hosley, op. cit., 299; R. A. Houk, SAB, XVIII (1943), 181–2.
8 J. C. Maxwell (private letter). It comes from Senatulus, tr. N. Bailey (1725), 483.
9 Hosley, op. cit., 302.
10 Cf. Donald A. Stauffer, Shakespeare’s World of Images (1949), 46; Cecil C. Seronsy, SQ, XIV (1963), 15–30; Hosley, ed. T.S. (Pelican Shakespeare); Leo Salingar, Shakespeare and the Traditions of Comedy (1974). M. Mincoff, ES, LIV (1973), 554 ff., argues forcibly that T.S. was written before C.E.
4 TITUS ANDRONICUS
1 ‘The Authorship of T.A.’, JEGP, XLII (1943), 55 ff.
2 See New Arden (1961), xxiv-xxvii, and New Cambridge (1948), xxv ff., editions.
3 Cf. R. M. Sargent, ‘The Source of T.A.’, SP XLVI (1949), 167 ff., for the view that the chapbook substantially represents Shakespeare’s source.
4 Cf. Bullough, VI. 12.
5 Cf. T. J. B. Spencer, ‘Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans’, SS 10 (1957), 27 ff.
6 Cf. R. A. Law, ‘The Roman Background of T.A.’, SP, XL (1943), 145 ff.
7 II. i. 135; IV. i. 82–3. Cf. Hip., ll. 1177 and 668.
J. A. K. Thomson, Shakespeare and the Classics (1952), 52, points out that the second of these quotations is modified by an echo from Seneca’s Epistle 107, ‘dominator poli’ being substituted for ‘Magna regnator deum’.
8 Cf. Bullough, VI. 26.
9 ‘The Metamorphosis of Violence in T.A.’, SS 10 (1957), 39 ff.
10 See R. F. Hill, ‘The Composition of T.A.’, SS 10 (1957), 60 ff., for a sympathetic study of the problems.
5–7 HENRY VI: PARTS 1–3
1 Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III (1929). Cf. Madeleine Doran, 2 and 3 Henry VI: Their Relation to The Contention and The True Tragedy (1928).
2 e.g. J. P. Brockbank, ‘The Frame of Disorder’ in Early Shakespeare, ed. J. R. Brown and B. Harris (1961), 73 ff.
3 Cf. Chap. I, n. 45.
4 But see J. Dover Wilson, ‘Malone and the Upstart Crow’, SS 4 (1951), 56 ff.; S. Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (1975), 115 ff.
5 J. Dover Wilson, New Camb. ed.; H. C. Hart, Old Arden ed.,; E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare (1930), I. 290–1.
6 L. Abercrombie, A Plea for the Liberty of Interpreting (1930).
7 Cf. 167 post.
8 2 Henry VI (1952), xxvii.
9 Especially if he had acted in any of their plays.
10 Nashe, ed. McKerrow, I. 212.
12 v. v. 103 ff.
13 Even though the fall of France and its causes is the overriding theme.
14 Cf. K. Muir, Shakespeare the Professional (1973), 74. The other passage is v. iii 1–4.
15 Richard II, v. iii.
16 Bullough, III. 113, 115.
17 Carol Dixon, in a paper read at the International Shakespeare Congress, Washington, 1976, argued that Henry VI was influenced by a number of ballads.
8 RICHARD III
1 W. G. Boswell-Stone, Shakespeare’s Holinshed (1907), 342 ff.; Bullough, III. 249 ff.
2 New Camb. ed. passim.
3 Boswell-Stone, 343.
4 ibid., 345.
5 New Camb. ed. (1954), 196.
6 Boswell-Stone, 391.
7 ibid., 417.
8 Edward V, f. xxi.
9 Hol. pp. 756–7, Hall, 1550, R3, xxxv–xxxi.
10 Bullough, III. 310–12.
11 ll. 1873 ff. The speech appears, unlike most of the play, to be reproduced fairly accurately in Q. Shakespeare’s debts to the old play were probably more considerable than can be deduced from Q which, we may suppose, was published in order to gain from the popularity of Shakespeare’s play.
12 i.e. Ah!
13 J. Dover Wilson, SQ, III (1952), 305.
14 G. B. Churchill, Richard III up to Shakespeare (1900), 497 ff.; J. Dover Wilson, op. cit., 299–306; Bullough, III. 237 ff.
15 New Camb. ed., xxv. Shakespeare does not mention that the prophecy comes true, since G could stand for Gloucester. Vaughan, as reported by Hall, Edward V (f. xvii), makes this point.
16 In a private letter to me (16 August 1971).
17 III. 313.
18 Cf. K. Muir, Shakespeare’s Tragic Sequence (1972), 26 ff.
W. H. Clemen has a detailed commentary on the play in A Commentary on … R. III (1968).
9 ROMEO AND JULIET
1 See O. H. Moore, The Legend of R.J. (1950); R. A. Law, Texas Studies (No. 9) (1929), 82–5; Mary M. Mulligan, The Sources of R.J. (Unpublished thesis, Liverpool, 1954).
2 J. C. Walker, Historical Memoir on Italian Tragedy (1799), 57.
3 ibid., 61.
4 John Masefield, William Shakespeare (1927), 70. This was modified in later editions.
5 Peter Alexander, Shakespeare’s Life and Art (1938), 115.
6 Brooke, op. cit., 254.
7 Law, op. cit.
8 353, 1353, 2710.
9 219, 387.
10 1738–40. T. W. Baldwin, Shakespeare’s Five-Act Structure (1947), 769, thinks that Marlowe was the debtor.
11 Address to the Reader.
12 Cf. K. Muir, NQ (1956), 241–3, for other sea imagery.
13 A Specimen of a Commentary, ed. A. Over and M. Bell (1967), 112, 224.
14 Curiously enough, QI of R.J. prints ‘barge’ for ‘barke’.
15 Ann Thompson, ‘Troilus and Criseyde and Romeo and Juliet’, The Yearbook of English Studies (1976), 26 ff., has recently shown how much the play owes to Chaucer.
10 RICHARD II
1 Matthew W. Black, ed. Richard II (1955), 405 ff.
2 New Camb. ed. (1939), lxxv ff.
3 Peter Ure, NQ (1953), 426–9, and ed. Richard II (1961), xxx-li.
4 e.g. Holinshed, 497, 499.
5 e.g. 487–94.
6 See n. 3 ante.
7 Archaeologia (1824). Text from J. A. Buchon, Collection des chroniques, XIV (1826), 336, 341, 371.
8 ibid., 341.
9 ibid., 369.
10 ibid., 372.
11 ibid., 411.
12 ibid., 417.
13 Ed. B. Williams (1846), 49, 52, 56.
14 ibid., 20.
15 ibid., 37, 56–60. Holinshed uses the expression in a different context, 489.
16 L. B. Campbell, Shakespeare’s Histories (1947), 308 ff., 319 ff. Cf. Bullough, III. 415 ff. Other parallels have been noted by Harold Brooks and Peter Ure.
17 Shakespeare’s History Plays (1944), 253.
18 ‘Notes sur les sources …’, Revue de l’Enseignement de Languages Vivantes (1924), I ff., 54 ff., 106 ff., 158 ff.
19 ed. cit., liv ff. [Berners’ Froissart, ed. W. E. Henley (1903), 336].
20 ibid., lvi [Henley, 311].
21 Ed. Woodstock (1946), 50 ff.
22 ed. cit., XXXV, xl.
23 Cf. Black (n. I ante), Reyher (n. 18), and The Civile Wars, ed. L. Michel (1958), 8–21.
24 Michel, 146, gives Daniel’s revised text.
25 ed. cit., xlix.
26 Hall (1550), Henry IV, f. vi (echoed by Holinshed).
27 ibid., f. xv.
28 Holinshed, 508.
29 Froissart, ed. Henley, 398. Cited by Tillyard, 295.
30 K. Muir, RES, x (1959), 283–9.
31 Shakespere’s Small Latine (1944), II. 427–8.
32 Fasti, I. 493–4.
33 Bullough, I. 323.
34 See 4 ante.
35 J. Lyly, Works, ed. Bond, I. 313–14, 316. Cited by Ure.
36 v. 97.
37 v. 74. Malone cited a Lyly passage given above.
38 In a private communication.
39 See 51 ante.
40 Ed. Rossiter, IV. i. 143 ff.
41 ibid., III. ii. 108–9, v. i. 127–8.
42 SS 6 (1953), 79 ff.
43 NQ (1953), 374 ff
44 J. Sylvester, III. ii. 2.
45 Unpublished thesis, University of Liverpool (1956), 16–17.
46 Ed. E. Gosse (1883), I, An Alarum against Usurers, 86.
47 op. cit., 86, 87, 88, 88, 86, 89, 90.
48 Harold F. Brooks, SQ, XIV (1963), 195–9, argues that among the sources of the political allegory of the garden-scene is Elyot’s Boke of the Gouernour, I. xxiii. He speaks of ‘improfytable weedes’ as the gardener proposes to root away the weeds ‘which without profit suck/The soil’s fertility’. In the same article Brooks suggests that the incident of Richard’s horse was derived from Elyot too. See II. xiii.
11 A MIDSUMMER-NIGHT’S DREAM
1 Works, ed. McKerrow, III. 324.
2 Bullough, I. 388.
3 Collected Poems, ed. Muir and Thomson (1969), 73.
4 Bullough, 389.
5 Sixteen Plays of Shakespeare, ed. Kittredge (1948), 148.
6 E. Schanzer, UTQ, XXIV (1954–5), 234 ff.
7 E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare (1930), I. 363.
8 E. I. Fripp, Shakespeare Man and Artist (1938), 394.
9 The Petite Pallace, ed. H. Hartman (1938), 125.
10 IV. 95.
11 III. 1331 ff.
12 3960 ff.
13 Cf. R. B. McKerrow, The Library (1924–5), 17–18; McKerrow and Ferguson, Title Page Borders (1932), 80.
14 Thomson (see below) calls it a mantle.
15 A Gorgious Gallery of Gallant Inventions, ed. H. E. Rollins (1926), 112.
16 T. Mouffett, Of the Silkewormes and their Flies (1599), 13.
17 Thisb was altered to Thisbe in later editions.
18 Golding’s ‘Tumbe’ may have suggested Thisbe’s rhyme, ‘dumbe’/‘tombe’
19 Mythology and the Renaissance Tradition (1932), 58.
20 As Bush suggests (59), Shakespeare may also have been influenced by Howell’s version of the story of Cephalus and Procris, mentioned by Pyramus and Thisbe, since Sephalus calls on the sisters three when he finds Procris dead:
He curst the gods that skies possesst,
The Systers three and all the rest.
21 ‘Then made he mone’. Cf. v. i. 325.
22 Dunstan Gale’s Pyramus and Thisbe was not published until after November 1596.
23 c. 1545.
24 Cf. ‘wicked cruell wall’ (Gorgious Gallery).
25 Bullough, I. 375, is unconvinced.
26 op. cit., 28.
27 Three passages may have influenced Theseus’ first speech in Act V.
28 Many of the parallels with Mouffet’s poem were pointed out by M. L. Farrand (SP, xxvn (1930), 233 ff.) and, more effectively, by A. S. T. Fisher (NQ (1949), 376 ff.). D. Bush, MLN, XLVI (1931), 144–7, replied to the first of these.
29 M. C. Bradbrook, Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry (1951), 98, 256.
30 Cf. Anne Righter, Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play (1962), passim.
31 In his forthcoming edition of M.N.D., Harold Brooks provides a remarkably full account of the sources. In addition to those mentioned above, he lists as probable sources three of Seneca’s plays – Oedipus, Medea, and especially Hippolytus – and passages from Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender. An article by Leah Scragg on the influence of Lyly’s Gallathea on M.N.D. is to appear in SS 30 (1977).
12 LOVE’S LABOUR’S LOST
1 Bullough, I. 425 ff.
2 Cf. M. C. Bradbrook, The School of Night (1936), 153 ff.; F. A. Yates, A Study of ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’ (1936); R. David, ed. L.L.L. (1951), xxxviii ff.; G. Ungerer, Anglo-Spanish Relations (1956).
3 Riverside Shakespeare (1974), 174.
13 KING JOHN
1 William M. Matchett in the Signet edition supports Honigmann. Dr S. Carr (Unpublished thesis, Liverpool, 1974) has convincingly argued that Shakespeare’s play was based on The Troublesome Raigne. The matter is discussed by Bullough, IV. I ff., and by R. L. Smallwood, Penguin ed. (1974), 365 ff.
2 Bullough, IV. 22.
3 Edward Rose, ‘Shakespeare as an Adapter’, Macmillan’s Magazine (1878).
4 Honigmann ed. (1954), xv–xvi.
5 E. C. Pettet, ‘Hot Irons and Fever’, EC, IV (1954), 128 ff.
6 ‘Commodity and Honour in K.J.’, UTQ, XXIX (1959–60), 341 ff. R. L. Smallwood, ed. K.J. (1974), 45–6.
III Comedies and Histories
14 THE MERCHANT OF VENICE
1 E. Honigmann, MLR, XLIX (1954), 293 ff.
2 Ed. J. R. Brown (1955), XXX, n.5.
3 Bullough, I. 463.
4 Bullough, I. 482; J. R. Brown, ed. cit., xxxi, 168.
5 Bullough, I. 486. The ballad is printed by J. R. Brown.
6 J. R. Brown, ed. cit., xxxi.
7 Bullough, I. 449.
8 Ed. F. Bowers, II. i. 47–8, 54.
9 J. Dover Wilson, Shakespeare’s Happy Comedies (1962), 94 ff.
10 Cf. Bullough, I. 456, 497. But it is unlikely that Shakespeare knew this tale.
11 J. R. Brown, ed. cit., xxxii, 173.
12 J. Dover Wilson, op. cit., 114.
15–16 HENRY IV: PARTS 1–2
1 Scenes concerned with rebellions would be cut sooner than those dealing with Hal’s exploits.
2 e.g. W. G. Zeeveld’s article, ELH, III (1936), 317 ff. I am indebted to Pauline Dalton’s unpublished thesis (Liverpool, 1965).
3 Hall, f. XX.
4 Bullough, IV. 196 ff.
5 Hall, f. XXI.
6 Holinshed, 498/2/3.
7 E. Seaton, K. M. Lea, RES, XXI (1945), 319–22.
8 Ed. L. Michel, 320. Daniel later altered this stanza.
9 Pointed out by Theobald in his edition of Shakespeare (1733).
10 Theobald, cited New Var. (1936), I. i. 70–3n.
11 Dalton, op. cit., 187.
12 J. Dover Wilson in The Library, XXVI (1945), 2 ff.
13 J. J. Elson, SP, XXXII (1935), 177 ff.
14 Bullough, IV. 164, seems to suggest that it is Prince John’s bravery which is being rewarded.
15 Bullough, IV. 251 ff.
16 E. B. Benjamin, ‘Fame, Poetry …’ SR, VI (1959), 64 ff.
17 NQ (1954), 238 ff.
18 A. E. Morgan, Some Problems of … Henry the Fourth (1922), 4–5.
19 ibid., 26–43. Cf. W. W. Greg, Henslowe Papers (1907), 57–8. Some readings are dubious and the spelling has been modernized.
20 Ed. G. B. Harrison (1922), 54, 74.
21 Cf. C. A. Greer, NQ (1954), 53 ff.
17 THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR
1 See H. J. Oliver’s ed. (1971), lv.
2 J. L. Hotson, Shakespeare Versus Shallow (1931), 85–7.
3 J. M. Nosworthy, Shakespeare’s Occasional Plays (1965), 93 ff.
4 F. G. Fleay, followed by New Camb. ed.
5 Dorothy Hart Bruce, SP, XXXIX (1942), 265 ff.
6 Bullough, II. 26.
7 Bullough, II. 6–7.
8 R. S. Forsythe, MP, XVIII (1920), 401 ff. Cf. Oliver, ed. cit., lix ff.
9 IV. iii. 29.
10 Hotson, op. cit., 113 ff.; Oliver, ed. cit., xlvi ff.; Bullough, II. II ff.; F. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1975), 31–2.
11 J. Crofts, Shakespeare and the Post-Horses (1937), passim.
12 Hotson, op. cit., passim.
18 HENRY v
1 Bullough, IV. 376 ff., gives extracts from all these.
2 Ed. Henry V (1954), xxxv.
3 Walter, ed. cit., xxxvi, and note on IV. iii. 16–18.
4 Bullough, 357.
5 Walter, ed. cit., 91.
6 Bullough, IV. 362, 408.
7 TLS (1974), 12 July.
8 J. H. Walter, MLR, XLI (1946), 237 ff.
9 Two recent interpretations may be mentioned: Gordon Ross Smith, ‘Shakespeare’s Henry V: Another Part of the Critical Forest’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXXVII (1976), 3 ff.; Andrew Gurr, SS 30 (1977), forthcoming.
19 MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
1 C. T. Prouty, The Sources of ‘M.A.’ (1950).
2 Bullough, II. 134, prints some of Fedele and Fortunio as an analogue.
3 D. J. Gordon, SP, XXXIX (1942), 279 ff.
4 op. cit., 71–2.
5 op. cit., 70.
6 Mary A. Scott, PMLA, XVI (1901), 475 ff.
7 Abbie Findlay Potts, SAB, xvn (1942), 103–11, 126 ff.
8 J. Masefield, Shakespeare (1911), 134.
9 F. C. Kolbe, Shakespeare’s Way (1930), 87–9.
20 JULIUS CAESAR
1 Among editors: J. D. Wilson (1949), T. S. Dorsch (1955). Among critics: M. W. MacCallum, Shakespeare’s Roman Plays (1910); E. Schanzer, Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1963).
2 M.N.D., II. i. 77–80.
3 Henry V, IV. vii. 25 ff. Caesar and Alexander are parallel lives.
4 One can be fairly sure that Shakespeare had not read Muret’s Latin play or that of Jacques Grévin, or even Pescetti’s Il Cesare, despite one or two interesting parallels (Calpurnia fears, as Brutus hopes, that the assassination of Caesar will be performed in the theatre; as in Shakespeare’s play, it is Cassius who urges that Antony should be killed, and Brutus replies that after the death of Caesar, Antony, a mere limb, would be powerless. Cf. Bullough, v. 32, and his reference to A. Boecker, 30 ff.). The anonymous Caesar’s Revenge, although not published until 1607, was probably written before Shakespeare’s play – it is discussed below. Only the epilogue of Caesar Interfectus has survived.
5 K. Muir, Shakespeare the Professional (1973), 33.
6 As in Caesar’s Revenge.
7 Douglas Bush, MLN, II (1937), 407–8. J. C. Maxwell, NQ (1956), 147, showed that in Decius Brutus’ flattery of Caesar (II. i. 203–8) he used an illustration from Elyot’s The Governor.
8 Shakespeare’s Appian (1956), ed. E. Schanzer, 14.
9 ibid., 15–16.
10 ibid., 19.
11 ibid., XX.
12 ibid., 44.
13 ibid., 45–6.
14 Ed. 1578, Sig. N2v.
15 Cf. E. Schanzer, op. cit., 18–19. Joan Rees thinks that the inconsistency of Kyd’s Caesar, both boastful and heroic, may have stimulated Shakespeare to explore the deeper implications of the character. MLR, L (1955), 135–41.
16 Ed. Boas.
17 Some other parallels are given in Shakespeare’s Sources, I, 194–5.
18 NQ (1954), 196–7.
19 ibid.
20 A. Bonjour, The Structure of J.C. (1958), Chap. 1.
21 Cf. J.C., ed. T. S. Dorsch, 58, 62.
Harold Brooks has supplied me with another echo from the Mirror (‘Shore’s Wife’, ed. L. B. Campbell, 378):
Duke Haniball in all his conquest greate,
Or Ceaser yet, whose triumphes did excede,
Of all their spoyles.
(Cf. J.C., III. viii. 149–51).
22 I. 467 ff.
23 522 ff.
24 Ed. E. Schanzer, 18, 20.
25 J. Dover Wilson, ed. J.C (1949), I. iii. 5–28n.
26 T. S. Dorsch, ed. cit., II. ii. 19–22n. Cf. Dekker, ed. A. Grosart, I. 13 ff.
27 Bullough, v. 141 ff., prints extracts from Sallust, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Florus. I agree that these are analogues rather than sources.
Sidney Homan’s recent article, SSt VIII (1975), 195 ff., has an interesting discussion of the influence of the parallel lives in Plutarch – Dion, Alexander, Demetrius – on Shakespeare’s portrayal of Brutus, Caesar, and Antony respectively.
21 AS YOU LIKE IT
1 W. W. Greg, ed. Rosalynde (1907), x, xiv.
2 Unpublished thesis, University of Birmingham.
3 Apparently the name he assumes in the forest of Arden.
4 Bullough, II. 155–6, 257.
5 E.g. H. Gardner, ‘A.Y.L.I.’ in Shakespeare: The Comedies, ed. K. Muir (1965), 58 ff.; E. C. Pettet, Shakespeare and the Romance Tradition (1949), 128–31.
6 Bullough, II. 155.
22 TWELFTH NIGHT
1 Barrett Wendell, William Shakespeare (1894), 209.
2 S. Race, NQ (1954), 380–3, thinks this is a Collier forgery.
3 Bullough, II. 339, prints the argument.
4 ibid., 342.
5 SQ (1954), 271 ff
6 ibid.
7 T.N., III. iii. 41–2.
8 M. Luce, ed. Riche’s Apolonius and Silla (1912), 11–12.
9 A Latin version of this play was performed at Queen’s College, Cambridge, in 1595 under the title of Laelia.
10 Novelle (1554), II. 36.
11 Histoires Tragiques, IV (1571), 229–30.
12 Still less would Shakespeare have followed Gl’Ingannati in having little Cittina describe the union of Lelia and Flaminio (v. v) or in having Pasquella describe how she and Isabella discover that Fabrizio is a man (IV.5): ‘e trovai che s’abbraciavano e si baciavano insieme. Io ebbi voglia di chiarirmi se era o maschio o femina. Avendolo la padrona disteso in sul letto, e chiamandomi ch’io l’aiutasse mentre ch’ella gli teneva le mani, egli si lasciava vincere. Lo sciclsi dinanzi: e, a un tratto, mi sentii percuotere non so che cosa in su le mani; né cognobbi se gli era un pestaglio o una carota o pur quell’altra cosa. Ma, sia quel si vuole, e’ non è cosa che abbia sentita la grandine. Come io la viddi cosi fatta, fugge, sorelle, e serra l’uscio! E so che, per me, non ve tornarei sola; e, se qualcuna di voi non mel crede e voglia chiarirsene, io gli prestarò la chiave’.
13 E. K. Chambers, Shakespeare: A Survey (1925), 178; L. Hotson, The First Night of ‘T.N.’ (1954), 98 ff.
14 Probably not from Malevolti of Il Sacrificio, performed and published with Gl’Ingannati.
15 Hotson, op. cit., 131.
16 MLR (1948), 449 ff.; Var. ed. T.N., 375–6.
17 Hotson, op. cit., passim.
18 ibid., 145 ff.
19 T. W. Baldwin, Shakespere’s Five-Act Structure (1947), 715.
20 Bullough, II. 278.
23 TROILUS AND CRESSIDA
1 The sources of the play are discussed in R. K. Presson’s Shakespeare’s T.C. and the Legends of Troy (1953) and Robert Kimbrough, Shakespeare’s T.C. and its setting (1964). There are wider surveys in the New Var. ed. (Hillebrand and Baldwin) and in Bullough, VI. I am also indebted to an unpublished Liverpool thesis by Mary F. Bruce (1948).
2 C. S. Lewis’s views, as expressed in The Allegory of Love (1936), on which this account is based, have since been questioned.
3 Henry V, II. i. 74; T.N., III. i. 53. Pistol’s phrase was a quotation.
4 338, 435.
5 Cf. L. C. Knights, TLS (1932), 408.
6 XI. 485 ff.
7 All listed by Presson, op. cit.
8 Bullough, vi. 214.
9 Presson, op. cit., 91 ff., and New Var., II. ii. 421n.
10 Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1950), 33 ff., 149.
11 Cf. C. H. Herford, N.S.S. Trans. (1888), 186, and K. Muir, NQ (1955), 141. For quotations, see Grosart’s ed. of Greene, VI, 209, 165, 167, 155, 169, 239, 236, 263, 160, 166, 195.
12 Readings of Q and F.
13 There is a full discussion in the New Var. ed., 389 ff., and a briefer one in Dobrée’s, pp. 116–17.
14 Seaven Bookes, n. 83 ff.
15 Aen. I. 430.
16 Chaps. I, II.
17 III. 1744 ff.
18 Cf. A. Hart, Shakespeare and the Homilies (1934), 33–4.
19 Temple, ed., II. 275, IV. I.
20 Steevens, ed. (1793).
21 SP, xm (1916), 100–9. I. A. Richards, Speculative Instruments(1955), 198 ff.
22 New Var. ed., 401.
23 H. Green, Shakespeare and the Emblem Writers (1870), 448 ff
24 W. B. D. Henderson, Parrott Presentation Volume, ed. H. Craig (1935), 142–4.
25 Archiv, CXXXIII (1915), 91–6.
26 Cf. Oscar J. Campbell, Comicall Satyre and Shakespeare’s T.C. (1938).
27 T. W. Baldwin in New Var. ed., 451–3.
28 The influence of Lucrece and the Sonnets on the imagery of the play is discussed by K. Muir, SS 8 (1955), 28 ff.
IV Tragic Period
24 HAMLET
1 Nashe’s preface of Greene’s Menaphon is thought by most critics to imply that Kyd was the author of the original Hamlet.
2 Bullough, VII. 16–17, lists a number of further resemblances between the two plays.
3 R. Armin, A Nest of Ninnies (1608), sig. G3v.
4 G. I. Duthie, The ‘Bad’ Quarto of Hamlet (1941), 186 ff.
5 Bullough, VII. 48, 188–9.
6 When Shakespeare was fifteen, a Katherine Hamlet was drowned in the Avon at Tiddington, and in July of the same year a William Shakespeare, of Warwick, was drowned in the Avon while bathing.
7 W. J. Lawrence, Speeding up Shakespeare (1937), 55 ff. As the soliloquy stands at present, Hamlet refers to the bourne from which no traveller returns, after he has seen the Ghost; but he could be implying that the devil had appeared in his father’s shape, or that a ghost is not the same thing as a real return in flesh and blood form.
8 Life and Letters, I (1928), 18.
9 Shakespeare as a Dramatist (1935), 77 ff.
10 Hamlet: A Study in Critical Method (1931), 97.
11 Selected Essays (1932), 143. Eliot later retracted.
12 E. M. W. Tillyard, Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1950), 29.
13 F. Bowers, Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy (1940), passim.
14 Tr. T. Lodge (1614), 520, 547–8, 556–7.
15 Bowers, op. cit.
16 J. J. Lawlor, RES (1950), 97. Cf. The Tragic Sense in Shakespeare (1960), 47 ff.
17 J. Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet (1935), 309–20, sets out most of the evidence.
18 T. Bright, op. cit., 257, 13, 130, 111–12, 124, 102–3, 131.
19 A. Davenport, NQ (1953), 371–4 and G. B. Evans, ibid., 377–8.
20 Bullough, VII, 44–5.
21 ibid., VII. 159 ff.
22 H. Craig, HLB (1934), 17 ff.
23 Frank McCombie in SS 27 (1974), 59 ff.
24 Tudor translations ed. II. 10–13.
25 K. Muir, NQ (1957), 285–6.
26 A. P. Stabler has three useful articles on the remoter sources of Hamlet: SP, LXII (1965), 654 ff.; Research St., XXXII (1964), 207; PMLA, LXXXI (1966), 207 ff. See also Bullough, VII. 5 ff.
W. Montgomerie, Hibbert Journal, LIX (1960), 67 ff., suggests the influence of Tacitus’ account of the Emperor Claudius.
25 ALL’S WELL THAT ENDS WELL
1 Op. cit., 29, 28, 32, 58, 92, 94, 97.
2 The critical history of the play is admirably surveyed in Joseph G. Price’s The Unfortunate Comedy (1968).
3 Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies (1931), 51 ff.
4 Shakespeare (1936), 302.
5 HLQ, XIII (1949), 217 ff.
6 Prefaces (1934), 155.
26 MEASURE FOR MEASURE
1 Mary Lascelles, Shakespeare’s ‘Measure for Measure’ (1953), gives the best and fullest treatment of the sources. Bullough, II. 399 ff., adds some points. Three earlier treatments are not altogether superseded: F. E. Budd, Rev. de Lit. Comp., (1931), 711–36; R. H. Ball, Univ. Colorado St. (1945), 132–46; L. Albrecht, Neue Untersuchungen zu Shakespeares Mass für Mass (1914).
2 op. cit., 35.
3 Endeavors of Art (1954), 385–9. Cf. E. Schanzer, The Problem Plays of Shakespeare (1963), 86.
4 op. cit.
5 Privately.
6 op. cit., 22 ff., 36 ff. Cf. Bullough, II. 514.
7 Bullough, VI. 371.
8 R. W. Chambers, Man’s Unconquerable Mind (1939), 301 ff.
9 Isabella refers to another substitution, that of Christ for the sinner. Cf. J. Black’s article in SS 26 (1973), 124.
10 John Masefield, William Shakespeare (1911), 178.
11 A. T. Cadoux, Shakespearean Selves (1938), 81.
12 R. Bridges, The Influence of the Audience (1927), 13.
13 J. I. M. Stewart, Character and Motive in Shakespeare (1949), 14.
14 The Jacobean Drama (1936), 260.
15 Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1950), 132.
16 Cf. J. W. Bennett, Measure for Measure as Royal Entertainment (1966). I have suggested elsewhere (NQ (1956), 424–5) that Shakespeare consulted Erasmus’ Funus to obtain background material about friars and nuns. Erasmus tells us that a dying man’s younger son is dedicated to St Francis, his elder daughter to St Clare: Filius minor dicaretur S. Francisco, filia maior S. Clarae. This passage may have suggested making Isabella a votaress of St Clare, as Francisco suggested Francisca, Isabella’s interlocutor. In the same context Erasmus tells us that the dying man is visited by Bernardine, a Franciscan friar, and Vincentius, a Dominican friar. On the page following the reference to St Clare, Erasmus speaks of Barnardino [sic] tanundem Vincentio, which may have given Shakespeare two of his characters’ names.
27 OTHELLO
1 Mario Praz, Machiavelli and the Elizabethans (1928), (Proc. Brit. Acad. 49–97), points out (68) that Cinthio’s Altile has a villain who ruins Norrino by his treachery, his motive being his thwarted love for Altile.
2 Cf. W. Wokatsch, Archiv, CLXII (1932), 118–19.
3 J. S. Smart, Shakespeare: Truth and Tradition (1928), 183n.
4 J. Sylvester, however, also uses the phrase ‘prophetic fury’. It may be mentioned that the tent, embroidered by Cassandra, described in several stanzas of Ariosto’s poem, seems to have suggested the magic in the web of Desdemona’s handkerchief.
5 Cf. II. i. 187–92.
6 III. ii. 29–41.
7 III. iii. 243–4, IV. i.
8 K. Muir, Penguin ed. (1968), 33.
9 Cf. Emrys Jones’s article, SS 21 (1968), 47–52, and G. R. Hibbard, ibid., 39–46. Shakespeare could have read about the Turkish wars in R. Knolles’s Generall Historie of the Turks (1603) and in W. Thomas’s Historie of Italie (1549). Cf. Bullough, VII. 212.
10 Cf. E. H. W. Meyerstein, TLS (1942), 72.
11 I. iii. III: ‘indirect and forced courses’.
12 I. iii. 77, 91–4, 169, 232.
13 v. 2. But see PMLA (1934), 807–9, and PQ (1938), 351 ff.
14 K. Muir, RES (1956), 182.
15 Malone’s note.
16 Hart’s note, ed. 1903, v. iii. 264.
17 XII. 14, 15, 25, XXXV. 15, XXXVIII. 8, XXV. 13, XIX. 5, XX. 3.
18 T. W. Baldwin, ‘Shakespeare’s Use of Pliny’, Parrott Presentation Vol., ed. H. Craig (1935), 157 ff.
19 K. Muir, MLR, LIV (1959), 224–5; NQ (1953), 513–14.
20 H. Gardner, The Noble Moor (Proc. Brit. Acad., 1955, 189–205).
21 A. C. Swinburne, Three Plays of Shakespeare (1909), 34.
22 Shakespeare (1936), 315–16.
23 Shakespeare’s Life and Art (1938), 166.
24 Barbara H. de Mendonca, SS 21 (1968), 31–8.
25 SS 21 (1968), 13 ff.
28 KING LEAR
1 Bullough, VII. 402.
2 Ed. K. Muir (1972), II. iv. 45n.
3 Bullough, vn. 270–1, 309–11.
4 Ed. K. Muir, xxiv ff.
5 ibid., xxxii-iii.
6 The Library, xx (1939–40), 386–97.
7 Ed. K. Muir, xxxi–xxxii, and n. 6 ante.
8 Barbara Heliodora de Mendonça, SS 13 (1960), 41 ff.
9 Bullough, vn. 337.
10 G. B. Harrison and H. Granville-Barker, A Companion to Shakespeare Studies (1934), 77.
11 D. M. McKeithan, Univ. Texas Bull., 8 July 1934, 45–9.
12 ll. 114–21.
13 K. Muir ed., xxx-xxxi.
14 ‘Shakespeare’s Significances’ in A. Bradby, Shakespeare Crit. 1919–35, 331.
15 Shakespere’s Small Latine and Lesse Greeke (1944), II. 520.
16 F. E. Budd, RES, XI (1935), 421 ff.
17 Per., IV. vi. 118; Temp., II. ii. 5–12.
18 K. Muir, ed. cit., 235; G. C. Taylor, Shakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne (1925).
19 Cf. R. Ellrodt’s article in SS 28 (1975), 37 ff.
20 Rosalie L. Colie, ‘Reason and Need’ in Colie and Flahiff, Some Facets of ‘King Lear’ (1974), 185 ff. Professor Colie refers to Lawrence Stone’s Crisis of the Aristocracy (1965). A number of other essays in Some Facets by Bridget Gellert Lyons (23 ff.), by F. D. Hoeniger (89 ff.), by Rosalie Colie (117 ff.) and by F. T. Flahiff (221 ff.) are relevant to a study of the sources of the play.
21 A. J. Price, NQ (1952), 313–14.
22 See K. Muir, Shakespeare’s Tragic Sequence (1972) and my review of S. L. Goldberg’s An Essay of King Lear, RQ, XXVIII (1975), 284 ff.
29 MACBETH
1 H. N. Paul, The Royal Play of Macbeth (1950), 17–22; Bullough, VII. 470–2.
2 K. Muir, Sources I, 167n. But see New Arden notes where additional sources are suggested for this speech: Seneca, Her. Fur., 1261–2, 1077–81; Seneca, Agam., Chorus I; Timothy Bright, A Treatise of Melancholie, 189. T. W. Baldwin cites Ciceronis Sententiae.
3 Paul, op. cit., 388–90.
4 ibid., 202–9; Bullough, VII. 438–43 509 ff., 517 ff.; New Arden ed., XXXV.
5 Paul, op. cit., 218–19.
6 ibid., 171–6, 212.
7 ibid., 174.
8 Ed. Grierson and Smith (1914), 105, ed. J. Dover Wilson, xliii.
9 SS 19 (1966), 82 ff.
10 ibid., 85.
11 K. Muir, NQ (1949), 214–16.
12 P. Sidney, The Defence of Poesie, E4v.
13 B. J. Burden, cited New Arden, xxxvi.
14 New Arden, 189.
15 ibid., 190. Based on G. Wilson Knight.
16 ibid., 190.
17 R. A. Law, Texas St. (1952), 35–41.
18 Glynne Wickham, ‘Hell-Castle and its Door-keeper’, SS 19 (1966), 68 ff.
19 Paul, op. cit., 237 ff.; New Arden, xv ff.
20 Paul, op. cit., 56–9.
21 New Arden, liv.
22 Paul, op. cit., 367 ff.
23 Cf. W. M. Merchant, ‘His Friend-like Queen’, SS 19 (1966), 75 ff.
24 e.g. Basilikon Doron, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, Daemonologie.
30 TIMON OF ATHENS
1 L.L.L., IV. iii. 166.
2 Bullough, VI. 294.
3 E. A. J. Honigmann, ‘Timon of Athens’, SQ, XII (1961), 3 ff.
4 SS 27 (1974), III ff. A second article by Bulman, SS 29 (1976), 103 ff., again argues that the anonymous Timon was the main source of Shakespeare’s play. Honigmann, op. cit., 12–13, argues that the mock banquet could have been suggested by Lucian, that the throwing of stones derives from his account of the later stoning of the parasites, and that the faithful steward was expanded from Plutarch’s Life of Antonius.
5 Cf. Honigmann, op. cit.
6 Bullough, VI. 263 ff., translated from the Italian.
7 Lives, ed. G. Wyndham, II. 143.
8 W. Farnham, Shakespeare’s Tragic Frontier (1950), 65.
9 C.F.E. Spurgeon, Shakespeare’s Imagery (1935), 198–9.
10 Moralia (tr. Holland, 1603), 83. Cf. P. Ure, Shakespeare: The Problem Plays (1961), 47.
11 The Wheel of Fire (1930), 208.
12 Cf. K. Muir, ‘Timon of Athens and the Cash Nexus’ (1947). Reprinted in The Singularity of Shakespeare (1977).
31 ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA
1 Bullough, v. 267.
2 ibid., 274.
3 W. A. Edwards, Plagiarism (1933), 110.
4 J. Middleton Murry, Countries of the Mind (1922), II. 11–12.
5 The Legend of Good Women.
6 P. D. Westbrook, PMLA, LXII (1947), 392–8.
7 Shakespeare’s Roman Plays (1910), 648–52.
8 E. Schanzer, Shakespeare’s Appian, 76–7.
9 E. Schanzer, NQ (1956), 152–4.
10 Ed. Antony and Cleopatra (1950), x, n2.
11 op. cit., 154.
12 E. Schanzer, op. cit., 153; J. Dover Wilson, 236.
13 op. cit., 44, 47, 58.
14 Cf. R. C. Bald, TLS (1924), 776; W. Farnham, Shakespeare’s Tragic Frontier (1950), 172–3; H. Norgaard, NQ (1955), 56–7.
15 The best account is by Willard Farnham, op. cit., 157 ff. He shows that Daniel’s Cleopatra and Shakespeare’s have the same mixed motives: to avoid being led in triumph; to safeguard her children; and to be loyal to Antony. Both refer to Antony as Atlas.
16 op. cit., 167.
17 Bullough, V. 314, 424.
18 Ed. F. Gohin (1925), 75–7. Joan Rees, MLR, XLVII (1952), 1–10, discusses Daniel’s debt to Jodelle.
19 Cf. Joan Rees, SS 6 (1953), 91 ff.
20 Cf. Helen Morris, ‘Queen Elizabeth I “shadowed” in Cleopatra’, HLQ (1969), 271–8. K. Muir, ‘Elizabeth I, Jodelle and Cleopatra’, RD (1969), 197 ff.
21 SQ, VII (1956), 59 ff.
22 SS 12 (1959), 88 ff.
23 RES (1946), 219 ff.
32 CORIOLANUS
1 K. Muir, NQ (1953), 240–2.
2 E. Honigmann called my attention to this book.
3 L. Hotson, I. William Shakespeare (1937), passim.
4 He uses some of North’s phraseology.
5 Cf. Leonard Barkan, Nature’s Work of Art (1975), passim.
6 Cf. G. R. Waggoner, ‘An Elizabethan attitude towards peace and war’, PQ, XXXIII (1954), 20 ff.
7 J. E. Phillips, Jr, The State in Shakespeare’s Greek and Roman Plays (1940), has a good summary of Bodin’s views.
8 ibid., 69 ff.
9 It may be mentioned that ‘persuade’, ‘accounted’, and ‘idle’ are used in this first scene, and that ‘enforced’, ‘repined’, ‘surcease’, and ‘sensibly’ occur elsewhere in the play.
10 e.g. F. N. Lees, RES, I (1950), 114 ff.; George Saintsbury, CHEL (1932), v. 198.
11 Discourses, ed. B. Crick (1970), 124–5, 183.
12 SS 28 (1975), 63–9; MLR, Lvn (1962), 321 ff. Cf. E. C. Pettet, ‘Coriolanus and the Midland Insurrection of 1607’, SS 3 (1950), 34 ff.
13 J. M. Murry, Discoveries (1924), 267–8.
14 Essays in Romantic Literature (1919), 220–1.
15 Bullough, v. 539.
16 Cf. H. Heuer, SS 10 (1957), 50 ff.
V Last Plays
33 PERICLES
1 Wilkins, however, referred to the performance by Shakespeare’s company and used Shakespeare’s names for the characters.
2 Cf. Kenneth Muir, Shakespeare as Collaborator (1960), 56 ff.
3 Poems and Fables, ed. J. Kinsley (1962), 160.
4 Percy Simpson, Studies in Elizabethan Drama (1955), 17–22. First noted by Malone.
5 See discussion of Lysimachus’ behaviour, p. 257 post.
6 R. W. Pease III, in an unpublished dissertation (University of Texas, 1972), ‘The Genesis and Authorship of Pericles’, suggests that Shakespeare began a play on the subject early in his career and took it up again after a lapse of nearly twenty years.
7 But it is curious, as F. D. Hoeniger points out (New Arden ed., xviii) that in a French MS Apollonius assumes the name of Perillie, and that in a 14th-century German poem Cerimon’s assistant is called Filominus.
8 Confessio, VIII. 1214 ff., 1704 ff.; (Bullough, VI. 401, 414).
9 J. M. S. Tompkins, RES, III (1952), 323.
10 III. 23.
11 Bullough, VI. 546.
12 Shakespeare as Collaborator, 78–9.
13 ibid., 80.
14 op. cit., lxxxi.
15 Shakespeare as Collaborator, 82.
16 Cf. Bullough, VI. 535.
17 SS 5 (1952), 44.
18 K. Muir, op. cit., 65 ff.; Bullough, VI. 549 ff. Cf. H. T. Baker, PMLA, XXIII (1908), 100 ff.
19 S. Spiker, SP, XXX (1933), 551 ff.; P. Edwards, SS 5 (1952), 25 ff.
20 ES, XLIV (1963), 401 ff.
21 See n. 17 above.
22 op. cit., xviii-xix.
23 ibid., Appendix B.
34 CYMBELINE
1 Dr. Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. W. K. Wimsatt (1969), 136.
2 Prefaces, II (1930), 247.
3 R. W. Boodle, NQ (1887), 405; J. M. Nosworthy, New Arden ed., xxiv. I am greatly indebted to Professor Nosworthy’s edition.
4 op. cit., xxv-xxvi.
5 Cf. E. Jones, ‘Stuart Cymbeline’, EC, XI (1961), 84–99; J. P.; Brockbank, ‘History and Histrionics in Cymbeline’, SS 11 (1958), 42–9; G. Wickham, ‘From Tragedy to Tragi-Comedy’, SS 26 (1973), 33–48.
6 Wickham, op. cit., 44.
7 Brockbank, op. cit., 48.
8 Appendix to New Arden ed.
9 Spenser, F.Q., II. x. 48.
10 Bullough, VIII. 11.
11 ibid., VIII. 62.
12 ibid., VIII. 403.
13 Arthur C. Kirsch, ELH, XXXIV (1967), 285–306.
14 A. H. Thorndike, The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare (1901), 152–60.
15 W.T., IV. iv. 127 ff.; Philaster, IV. vi. 2 ff.
16 Similarly Auden’s plays were influenced by Eliot’s and vice-versa.
17 K. Muir and S. O’Loughlin, The Voyage to Illyria (1937), 216–17.
18 R. Warwick Bond, Studia Otiosa (1938), 69 ff.
19 E. M. W. Tillyard, Shakespeare’s Last Plays (1938), 68 ff.
35 THE WINTER’S TALE
1 Recent discussions of Shakespeare’s use of Pandosto are to be found in the following books and articles: New Arden, ed. J. H. P. Pafford (1963); The Winter’s Tale: A Commentary on the Structure by F. Pyle (1969); Bullough, VIII, 115 ff.; John Lawlor, ‘Pandosto and the Nature of Dramatic Romance’, PQ, XLI (1962), 96 ff.; Hallett Smith, Shakespeare’s Romances (1972), 95 ff.
2 N. Coghill, ‘Six Points of Stagecraft’, SS 11 (1958), 31 ff.; W. Matchett, ‘Some Dramatic Techniques in W.T.’, SS 22 (1969), 93–107.
F. Pyle, op. cit., 16–17, denies that Hermione is visibly pregnant.
3 ibid., 39.
4 Shaw on Shakespeare, ed. E. Wilson (1969), 171.
5 Bullough, VIII. 163–8.
6 S. L. Bethell, The Winter’s Tale: A Study (1947), 47 ff.
7 ibid., 65.
8 Thomas R. Price in Shakespeariana vn (1890); E. Schanzer, ‘The Structural Pattern of W.T.’ Both these and Coghill’s article (n. 2 above) are reprinted in K. Muir’s Casebook (1968).
9 vm. xix.
10 Bullough, VIII. 203. He also includes a bear episode from Mucedorus.
11 E. Honigmann, PQ, XXIV (1955), 27–38.
12 Bullough, VIII. 173.
13 ibid., 176.
14 ibid., 219.
15 Barbara Melchiori, however, Eng. Misc. XI (1960), 59–74, discusses traces of incest in the last plays, apparent in Pericles and Pandosto, faintly in Leontes’ admiration for Perdita, and vestigially in Prospero’s sermons to Ferdinand about chastity.
16 Honigmann, op. cit.; Bullough, VIII. 133, 222.
17 Bullough, VIII, 229.
18 Shakespeare’s Dramatic Heritage (1969), 264.
19 See n. I above.
20 K. Muir, ‘The Ending of W.T.’ in The Morality of Art, ed. D. W. Jefferson (1969), 87 ff.
21 Cf. Coghill, op. cit.
22 See Casebook, 32, 45 ff.
23 Bullough, VIII. 171.
24 ibid., VIII. 162.
25 ibid., VIII. 184.
26 E. Honigmann discusses a number of other parallels. Sabie, e.g., says that he wrote the poem to expel ‘the acoustomed tediousnes of colde winters nightes’; he and Shakespeare, unlike Greene, have the oracle consulted before the exposure of the babe; and the name given to Fawnia in Flora’s Fortune, Sabie’s sequel, may have suggested the comparison of Perdita to ‘Flora/Peering in April’s front’.
27 The Third Party of Conny-Catching (1592). Bullough, VIII. 217.
28 The Second Part of Conny-Catching (1592). Bullough, VIII. 215.
29 ibid., Bullough, VIII. 214.
30 G. Wilson Knight, The Crown of Life (1947), 101.
31 IV. iv. 660 ff.
32 J. E. Bullard, W. M. Fox, TLS (1952), 189.
33 op. cit., 104 ff.
34 New Camb. ed., 168.
35 SAB, XVIII (1943), 114–20. Reprinted Casebook.
36 The last sentence of the quotation seems to be echoed in Florizel’s description of Perdita, IV. iv. 143–6.
37 Ovid, v. 391 ff.; Golding, v. 491 ff.
38 REL, v (1964), 83 ff. Reprinted in Casebook. John Lawlor, op. cit., has a comment linking the discussion of art and nature with the final scene of the play: ‘It is the actual truth of this play that art restores happiness by becoming nature: the statue moves … and descends. In a deeper sense, the truth of the romance-kind, in the theatre, turns directly upon the audience being given not a foresight of events to come – indeed, surprise must play the largest part in the final unfolding – but a foretaste of a happiness which will not finally be withheld … The crowning surprise of the romance play, if it is not to be mere coup de théâtre, must come as fulfilment of a happiness the audience has begun to hope for in despite of probability’.
36 THE TEMPEST
1 E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare, I. 493.
2 Bullough, VIII. 316.
3 K. M. Lea, Italian Popular Comedy (1934), II. 443 ff.; Bullough, VIII. 259 ff.
4 F. Kermode, New Arden ed., lxv, lxix; Bullough, VIII. 245.
5 The suggestion that James Rosier’s account of a ceremonial Virginian dance with the cry of ‘Baugh, Waugh’ influenced the burthen of Ariel’s first song seems flimsy. It was not published until 1613. Cf. New Arden ed., xxxiii.
6 Bullough, VIII. 334. Possibly, as Nosworthy suggests, the storm in the Aeneid (I. 81 ff.) may have contributed, and also the shipwreck in Juvenal’s 12th satire.
7 op. cit., 36.
8 SSt, I. 261 ff.
9 New Arden ed., 143.
10 Robert Graves, Poetic Unreason (1925), 208 ff.; Ann Pasternak Slater, SS 25 (1972), 125 ff.
11 J. M. Nosworthy, RES, XXIV (1948), 287 ff.; F. N. Lees, NQ (1954), 147–9.
12 2 Peter, iii. II.
13 Ed. Kastner and Charlton (1921), 1553–62, 33, 1154–6, 2144–5.
14 Golding (1567), VII. 258 ff. Ovid, Metam., vu. 192 ff.
15 Frances A. Yates, Theatre of the World (1969), 171, has argued that Prospero is in some sense a portrait of John Dee. Cf. her Shakespeare’s Last Plays, A New Approach (1975), passim.
1 Henslowe’s Diary, ed. R. A. Foakes and Rickert (1961), 318.
2 ibid., 171, 180, 184.
3 New Arden, ed. R. A. Foakes (1957), xxi-xxii.
4 Bullough, IV. 452 ff.
5 ed. cit., 120n.
6 Bullough, IV. 443; Foakes, ed. cit., xxxvi.
7 Holinshed, Chronicles (1587), 907; Bullough, IV. 467.
8 S. Schoenbaum, ed. Henry VIII (1967), xxxiii; Bullough, IV. 450.
9 DUJ (1948), 48 ff. Reprinted Shakespeare’s Histories, ed. William A. Armstrong (1972).