Samuel Harsnett, who died Archbishop of York in 1631, was the author of this strange work, the full title of which is " A Declaration of Egregious Popishe Impostures, to with-draw the harts of Her Maiestie's Subjects from their allegeance, and from the truth of Christian Religion professed in England, under the pretence of casting out devils. PRACTISED by EDMUNDS, alias Weston, a Jesuit, and diuers Romish Priestes his wicked associates. Where-unto are annexed the Copies of the Confessions, and Examinations of the parties themselues, which were pretended to be possessed, and dispossessed, taken upon oath before his Maiesties Commissioners, for causes Ecclesiastical AT LONDON printed by Iames Roberts, dwelling in Barbican, 1603."

Shakespeare, it is practically certain, must have had this book in his hands; to it he is indebted for the names of the spirits mentioned by Edgar, when keeping up his assumed character of a Bedlam Beggar, and at least twice in the play he seems certainly to have had his eye on passages in it (see notes to Act III. scene iv. lines 53, 54, and to Act IV. scene i. lines 63, 64).

As to the other limit, we know that King Lear was written before Saint Stephen's Day (26th December) 1606; from the entry in the Stationers' Registers, made November the 29th, 1607, which I have given on pp. xiv, xv.

We can so far fix the limits to the date of King Lear, but the precise time (between March 1603 and December 1606) at which it was written cannot be clearly demonstrated. Malone conjectured that its first appearance was in March or April 1605. Here it is necessary to refer

From Henslowe's Diary

to the old play of King Leir. (ed. Collier, pp. 33, 34) we learn that a "Kinge Leare " was performed on the 6th April 1594, by the combined companies of the Queen and Lord Sussex. This play was in all probability that entered in the Stationers' Registers on the 14th of May 1594, to Edward White, as The moste famous chronicle historye of Leire, kinge of England, and his three Daughters (Arber's Transcript, ii. 649). No copy of White's edition of this play has come down to us, nor is there any record of his ever having transferred his right in it to any other publisher. Eleven years later, 8th of May 1605, Simon Stafford entered on the Stationers' Registers A booke called The Tragecall historie of Kinge LEIR and his three Daughiers, etc., as it was latelie acted. On the same day he transferred his rights in it to John Wright, reserving to himself the printing of the book (Arber, iii. 289). The book was published the same year, with the following title-page :

"The True Chronicle History of King Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella. As it hath been diuers and sundry times lately acted. London, printed by Simon Stafford for John Wright, and are to bee sold at his shop at Christ Church dore, next Newgate Market, 1605."

There is no evidence whatever that this play is identical with that entered to White in 1594; but from its style it may reasonably be supposed of much earlier date than May 1605, and it is extremely probable that Malone is right in assuming that both entries relate to one and the same play. He made its consideration an

b

element in determining the date of Shakespeare's King Lear on the theory that the popularity of this latter induced Simon Stafford to reprint the old play with the fraudulent intention of palming it off on the public as the Shakespearian play they had applauded on the stage. This would suppose that Shakespeare's Lear had been produced on the stage some little time before Simon Stafford made his first move on the 8th of May 1605, by entering the old Leir on the Stationers' Registers; hence Malone conjectured that Shakespeare's King Lear made its first appearance" in March or April 1605."

Malone's theory as to date has found a modern supporter in Mr. Fleay, who (writing in Robinson's Epitome of Literature, August 1, 1879) confidently pronounces that "the play was written before May 8, 1605." He is of opinion that "Malone was right in his date, and in his inference that Stafford wished to pass the old play off as Shakespeare's." After noticing that Shakespeare first gave a tragic ending to the story, Mr. Fleay goes on, "the old 'Chronicle History' could not have been described as 'Tragical' in 1605 had not a tragedy on the subject been 'lately acted,' nor could the tragedy have been any other than Shakespeare's." 'Wright, however," he goes on," had not the impudence to put Stafford's 'Tragical History' on his title-page, though he kept the 'latelie acted""; and this, Mr. Fleay thinks, was the reason why, in 1608, Nathanael Butter described his edition of King Lear as a "Chronicle History" and not as a tragedy.

Now though, at first sight, it may puzzle us as to why the pre-Shakespearian play, The Historie of Kinge Leir, should have been described as " tragecall," yet a little con

sideration of the question will, I think, make it clear that this need not disturb us; for a tragical history, according to the meaning of these words in the language of that day, it clearly is; in that age, and long before it, a composition might quite correctly be so described though it had a prosperous ending. Nahum Tate, in his alteration of King Lear thus quotes from Dryden's Dedication to the Spanish Friar, "Neither is it so trivial an undertaking to make a tragedy end happily; for 'tis more difficult to save than 'tis to kill" (see Essays of John Dryden, W. P. Ker, 1900, vol. i. p. 249).

Tragedy originally had the meaning of a composition of a mournful cast. When the old Scottish poet Dunbar in "The Lament for the Makaris" writes of "balat-making and trigide," by the latter word he can only mean poetry written in a melancholy strain. The old play of King Leir, up to the fifth act, is surely a composition of a most mournful kind. Let us also remember that at this time the historical play was fast losing its vogue, and that tragedy under Shakespeare's influence was in great force; a not over-scrupulous publisher might well be tempted to give a play of that nature the title "Tragecall " for the purpose of tempting buyers; nor must we forget that in 1623 Heminge and Condell put into their list of tragedies in their first edition of the plays of Shakespeare, 1623, at least one play which has a distinctly prosperous conclusion; I, of course, refer to Cymbeline. Now this being so, the only possible shadow of evidence for the fraudulent intention of Simon Stafford in this matter is this, that when the play was published he never gave effect to his intention, for we read on the title-page of the 1605 edition

of this play "The True Chronicle History," not "The Tragecall History of," King Leir; and I ask, is there in this" matter to condemn a man ”? In spite, therefore, of anything that has been advanced, I cannot but think it clear that this idea of Stafford attempting to gull the public is a matter of the merest conjecture.

Let us now examine the second part of Malone's evidence for the 1605 date of the play.

After mentioning Harsnett's book, Malone goes on, "This play is ascertained to have been written after the month of October 1604, by a minute change which Shakespeare made in a traditional line, put into the mouth of Edgar: His word was still, Fye, foh, and fum, I smell the blood of a British man.”

The old metrical saying, which is found in one of Nashe's pamphlets (ie. "Have with you to Saffron-Walden," printed in 1595; see Grosart's edition of Nashe's Works, vol. iii. p. 53) and in other books, was-" Fy, Fa, Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman"; and this convinced Malone that these words could not have been written till after October the 24th, 1604, when the two kingdoms were united in name, and James was proclaimed king of Great Britain (see Malone's Shakespeare, Boswell, 1821, vol. ii. pp. 404-406). I fully believe in the play having been written after October 1604, but in looking into the matter we see that even before that date the change might well have been made; for, as Chalmers 1 pointed out, "there was issuyed from Greenwich, on the 13th of May 1603, a royal proclamation, declaring that until a complete union the King held and esteemed the two realms as presently 1 Chalmers' Supplemental Apology, etc., p. 413.