o 
 
 A 
 
 __ 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 ■ 
 
 o I 
 
 n 
 
 — 
 
 a I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 7- 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 == 
 
 r~l t 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 6 
 8 
 
 ^^"^^ ~n 
 
 = > 
 
 _ _ _ — — r— 
 
 4 
 
 _ " -c 
 
 HALL 
 Shakspere's Plays
 
 SHAKSPERE'S PLAYS: 
 
 THE SEPARATE EDITIONS OF, WITH THE ALTERATIONS 
 DONE BY VARIOUS HANDS; 
 
 BY 
 
 H. T. HALL, 
 
 Author of " Shaksperean Fly Leaves" " The May Queen," 
 " The Dramatic Album," &c, &c. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 I 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 H. W. WALLIS, BOOKSELLER, SIDNEY STREET. 
 
 l88o.
 
 LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIF< 
 SANTA BARBARA 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 \JI7N preparing a new and enlarged edition of this brief 
 (5) chronicle of the various revised, altered, and 
 so-called improved versions of the Plays of William 
 Shakspere, the author does not expect to meet with 
 general accord ; yet he trusts that the admirers of 
 the foremost poet of the world will not take umbrage 
 at his effort, " for never anything can be amiss, when 
 simpleness and duty tender it." He has sought by 
 close attention, "correction and instruction," to make 
 the pamphlet reliable ; and, with all due " reason and 
 respect," he hopes that his labour of love will not 
 turn out to be " Love's Labour Lost."
 
 C O N T E N T S 
 
 Introduction 
 
 Comedies : 
 
 The Tempest 
 
 The Two Gentlemen of Verona 
 
 Merry Wives of Windsor 
 
 Twelfth Night 
 
 Measure for Measure 
 
 Much Ado About Nothing 
 
 A Midsummer Night's Dream 
 
 Love's Labour Lost 
 
 The Merchant of Venice 
 
 As You Like It 
 
 All's Well That Ends Well 
 
 Taming of the Shrew 
 
 The Winter's Tale 
 
 The Comedy of Errors 
 
 Histories : 
 
 King John 
 Richard II. 
 Henry IV., Part I. 
 II. 
 V., 
 
 VI., Part I. 
 II. 
 Hi- 
 Richard III. 
 Henry VIII. 
 
 Tragedies : 
 Macbeth 
 
 Troilus and Cressida 
 Timon of Athens 
 Coriolanus 
 Julius Caesar 
 Antony and Cleopatra 
 Cymbeline 
 Titus Andronicus 
 Pericles 
 King Lear 
 Romeo and Juliet 
 Hamlet 
 Othello 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 iii. 
 
 • 7 
 1 1 
 
 12 
 14 
 
 • 15 
 
 L" 
 . 18 
 
 19 
 . 20 
 
 21 
 . 22 
 
 23 
 
 . 24 
 
 26 
 
 . 28 
 29 
 
 • 3i 
 
 32 
 
 • 34 
 35 
 
 . id. 
 
 37 
 
 . a. 
 
 41 
 
 • 43 
 47 
 
 ,. 48 
 50 
 
 • 53 
 55 
 
 ■• 59 
 62 
 
 63 
 .. 64 
 
 69 
 .. 72 
 
 74
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The immense popularity of the works of Shakspere is 
 most clearly shown by the very great number of editions 
 which have been brought out, numbering not less than 
 542 in his native language, and also by the multitudinous 
 editions of his Plays which have been separately pub- 
 lished. The universality of knowledge contained in the 
 dramas of Shakspere — their thorough development ot 
 humanity, possessing as they do more actual wisdom 
 than the whole body of English learning — have won for 
 them the highest appreciation and general acceptance. 
 Not only in the country of his birth, but throughout 
 Europe — even in the far East and the cold North— have 
 the Plays of Shakspere found readers and translators. 
 In England his praises are on all men's tongues who are 
 in any way acquainted with English literature ; and 
 through the medium of dramatic representations they 
 have become " as familiar as household words " amongst 
 the play-going public. Yet despite this great popularity, 
 but little is known relative to the manner in which the 
 Shaksperean drama has served the purposes of other 
 dramatists, who in their " profound conceit " have 
 thought they could improve, adorn and beautify the
 
 IV. 
 
 works of our many-sided master. Little is known how 
 his works have been cut, trimmed and manipulated by 
 various dramatic writers and actors. The general 
 public in the past century and even in the present one, 
 have not unfrequently " taken these tenders for true pay 
 which are not sterling," and applauded lines and scenes 
 which were never written by Shakspere. His plots 
 have been altered and his language has been fashioned 
 afresh by each reviser and improver of his works, so 
 that they have lost their force, brilliancy and character- 
 isation. He has had "sick interpreters," whose bad 
 doings have been " cried up for his best art," and these 
 " continual plodders " have "won authority from other's 
 books." The " justness of each act " has often been 
 destroyed by being " patched with cloth of any colour," 
 which these "daws," who "have been at a great feast 
 of languages and stolen the scraps," have sought to 
 tack on. His " greatness subjected to the breath of 
 every fool," who, " crammed with arrogancy, spleen and 
 pride," have sought to " carry his honours ever," and 
 " in defect of judgment " ripened " in the sunshine of 
 his favour," and in the " shadow of such greatness." In 
 some instances our bard has had to incur public odium 
 for work not his own, and thus " the greatest are mis- 
 thought for things that others do." " The world's large 
 tongue " has now found utterance on his behalf, and 
 these "thieves of occasion," who have drawn out the 
 " thread of their verbosity" much " finer than the staple 
 of their argument," " now stand upon slippery ground," 
 and are fast falling into the waters of that lake which is 
 known by the name of Oblivion. 
 
 Some of the alterations which have been made are of 
 the strangest character, and none more so than those 
 made by Davenant and Dryden. The circle for whom
 
 V. 
 
 they sought to "gild refined gold and to paint the lily," 
 indulged in lewdness and profanity, and there cannot be 
 any question that the Court of the latest Stuarts was 
 marked by conduct of a libidinous nature. The altera- 
 tions made by succeeding dramatists and actors have 
 in no way added to the worth of Shakspere, but, on the 
 other hand, have demonstrated the inability of those 
 who made the alterations to comprehend the greatness 
 of Shakspere, who seems to grow ever more in wisdom 
 and truth as we ourselves in wisdom grow. The 
 wonderful vitality of the works of Shakspere is evidenced 
 in the fact, that though so frequently weighted with the 
 dross of others, they still keep the stage and are more 
 than ever read. So great is the influence of his works, 
 that in the past and in the present, he has been — 
 
 " the charmer of each age, 
 Whose thoughts so subtly with our growth have grown, 
 We are not conscious they are not our own." 
 
 Each succeeding year adds to the number of students 
 and readers of the works of the " sweet swan of Avon ;" 
 and this considerable increase in the number of students 
 and readers of Shakspere's works during the last 
 hundred years has been productive of several advan- 
 tages : it has led to a full and searching inquiry into 
 the text of Shakspere, by a close comparison between 
 the early folio and quarto editions of his works, and 
 the result of this enquiry has been the gradual disuse of 
 most of the so-called improvements and alterations of 
 his plays, and the diffusion of a more extended know- 
 ledge of his original text, and of the art and manner 
 he has displayed in the construction of his dramas ; at 
 the same time, it has also enforced a greater necessity 
 on the part of theatrical managers to adhere more 
 closely to the orginal text when seeking to represent
 
 VI. 
 
 the poet's works. But three of the alterations may now 
 be said to keep the stage : Richard III. by Colley Cibber, 
 King Lear by Nahum Tate, and Katharine and Petruchio 
 by David Garrick ; and these three versions are in all 
 probability about the worst that were ever made. Most 
 of the versions which have been produced in the last 
 twenty-five years on the English stage keep very close 
 to the text of Shakspere, more particularly those of 
 Phelps, C. Kean, Calvert and Irving ; the first named 
 having edited an excellent edition of the works of 
 Shakspere, which displays true scholarship, combined 
 with a reverent love for the great master's productions. 
 The other acting editions are chiefly remarkable for 
 their sins of omission and transposition, than for any 
 other offence against the true text. The purport of the 
 following pages, is to show the number and nature of 
 the alterations that have been effected, and also to give 
 the number of editions of the separate plays that have 
 been printed and published.
 
 COMEDIES. 
 
 The Tempest, 45 Editions. In 1667, this play was 
 altered by John Dryden and Sir W. Davenant, and 
 produced at the Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre, on 
 November 7th. Of this alteration eleven editions were 
 published : eight in quarto and three in i2mo. This 
 joint alteration embraced omissions and additions, most 
 of the latter being weak and in extreme bad taste. In 
 this version, the authors have introduced Hippolito, a 
 man who has never seen a woman, and Sycorax, a 
 sister-monster to Caliban ; they have also given Pros- 
 pero another daughter, called Dorinda, and the quaint 
 and delicate Ariel was provided with a female com- 
 panion called Milcha. Trinculo is converted into the 
 boatswain, and speaks a good deal of the language 
 which belongs of right to Stephano ; and two fresh 
 sailors, Ventoso and Mustacho, are added to the dramatic 
 personse. In the 4th act Hippolito is wounded, and 
 Ariel says of him — 
 
 " His soul stood almost at life's door, all bare 
 And naked, shivering like boys upon a river's 
 Bank, and loth to tempt the cold air, but I took 
 Her, and stopp'd her in." 
 
 Dorinda asks, " What is the soul ? " 
 
 Hifi£o. " A small blue thing that runs about within us. 
 Dor. Then I have seen it in a frosty morning run 
 Smoaking from my mouth."
 
 This is the kind of balderdash that has been thrust into 
 Shakspere's play, and was looked upon and valued by- 
 its authors as an improvement upon the elder bard. In 
 1673, it was altered by Shadwell and converted into an 
 opera, with a choice selection of new scenes and new 
 machinery. It was produced at Dorset Garden Theatre 
 with great success, the treasury of the theatre realising 
 a large sum by its production.* In 1674, The Mock 
 Tempest, or the Enchanted Castle, a farce in five acts, 
 by Duffet,f was produced. The great success of 
 Shadwell's version at the other theatre was the cause of 
 this farce or burlesque being brought out at the Theatre 
 Royal. There is not much in this piece, but the song 
 of Ariel, " Where the bee sucks, there suck I," is very 
 happily imitated — 
 
 " Where good ale is, there suck 1, 
 
 In a cobbler's stall I lie, 
 
 While the watch are passing by ; 
 
 Then about the streets I fly, 
 
 After cullies merrily : 
 
 And I merrily, merrily take up my clo'se, 
 
 Under the watch and the constable's nose." 
 
 In 1756, David Garrick altered it to an opera; the 
 
 •Great attention to show and scenic effect seems to have been prevalent at this 
 time, for Dryden, in one of liis prologues spoken at the opening of the new Theatre Royal, 
 on March 24th, 1674, thus alludes to it :— 
 
 " 'Twere folly now a stately pile to raise, 
 To build a playhouse while you throw down plays, 
 While scenes, machines and empty operas reign, 
 And for the pencil, you the pen disdain." 
 
 f This author wrote two other burlesques : " The Empress of Morocco " and "Pschye 
 Debauched," both of which were produced at the Theatre Royal. That the public taste for 
 tin- clasa of entertainment did not long continue, is evidenced by some verses written 
 soon after the production of these pieces : — 
 
 " The dullest scribblers some admirers found, 
 And The Mock Tempest was a while renown'd ; 
 But this low stuff the town at last despis'd, 
 And scorn'd the folly that they once had priz'd."
 
 music being by Mr. Smith. Prospero in this version rs 
 made to sing, and some of the other parts are borrowed 
 from Dryden. There is a lot of arrant nonsense sung in 
 the opera, and none more so than that sung by Ariel, 
 from Dryden's Tyrannic Love : 
 
 " Merry, merry, merry, we sail from the east, 
 Half tippled at a rainbow feast." 
 
 In 1776 it was altered by R. B. Sheridan; the 
 songs with music by T. Linley, jun. Two editions of 
 this version appeared. In 1780 it was altered and 
 produced as " The Shipwreck," at the Patagonian 
 Theatre. In 1789, J. P. Kemble altered it from the 
 Dryden and Davenant version. Kemble restored a 
 good deal of Shakspere, though he retained most of 
 Dryden's unnatural additions. This renovated version 
 was produced at Drury Lane Theatre, on October 13th, 
 1789, and acted about fifteen times. In Act 1 of this 
 version Ferdinand does not appear, and it concludes in 
 the same manner as the Dryden version, with a scene 
 between Miranda and Dorinda. Act 2 opens with a 
 dull song by Ariel, then the wreck of the ship, which 
 sinks ; Trinculo swims ashore ; the scene between 
 Alonzo and others is omitted. Caliban, Stephano and 
 Trinculo appear as in Shakspere's play ; then follows a 
 long selection from Dryden, and the act terminates with 
 a scene between Miranda and Ferdinand from the first 
 act of the original play. Act 3 opens with the first 
 meeting of Miranda and Ferdinand from Shakspere ; 
 then follows Caliban, Stephano and Trinculo as in 
 Shakspere : Prospero, as per Dryden, allows Miranda to 
 see Ferdinand, and when she is left alone she sings a 
 song ; Ferdinand enters with a log. This part is from 
 Shakspere ; they then sing a duet and the scene is con-
 
 10 
 
 eluded from Dryden. The banquet scene is made very 
 short and the act concludes with a duet and chorus of 
 furies. Act 4 begins with Shakspere, and the rest part 
 thereof is derived from Dryden. Act 5 is mainly com- 
 posed of Dryden ; Prospero's abjuration of his magical 
 power, as written by Shakspere, is omitted, excepting 
 some three or four lines ; then five weak lines by Kemble 
 introduce the masque of Neptune and Amphitrite, and 
 Ariel and the spirits conclude the play with " Where 
 the bee sucks," &c. Miss Farren personated the cha- 
 racter of Dorinda, Mrs. Goodall that of Hippolito, and 
 Mrs. Crouch, Miranda. Three editions of this alteration 
 were published: one in 1789, 1806 and 1807. In 1815, 
 Kemble made still further alterations in this comedy, by 
 omitting more of Dryden and restoring more of Shak- 
 spere. Neither of these alterations add to the credit of 
 Kemble, either as an actor or Shaksperean scholar, for 
 he must still be classed with those who have won 
 disgrace for themselves by mutilating the text of Shak- 
 spere. In 182 1, this play was again converted into an 
 opera, and produced at Covent Garden Theatre on May 
 15th. This mutilation is one among the worst ever 
 perpetrated by our English play-vampers, who, secure 
 in their own puny powers, fail not to introduce a farrago 
 of unmeaning nonsense into the works of the great 
 poet. Mr. Macready was the Prospero of the opera ; 
 Miss Stephens, Dorinda ; Miss Hallande, Miranda ; 
 Miss Foote, Ariel; Mr. Emery, Caliban; Mr. W. Farren, 
 Stephano ; Trinculo, Blanchard ; Alonso, Egerton ; Fer- 
 dinand, Abbott ; and Hippolito, Duruset. The addi- 
 tional songs and dialogue were added by Reynolds. 
 On May 28th, 1824, Shakspere's Tempest, after a lapse 
 of fifteen years, was revived for one night. This, how- 
 r, was not Shakspere's play, but an excised version
 
 II 
 
 of Dryden and Davenant, for two or three of their 
 characters were retained. It was played for the benefit 
 of Madame Vestris, and it was cast as follows : — 
 Prospero, Mr. Macready ; Ferdinand, Mr. S. Penley; 
 Caliban, Browne ; Stephano, Dowton ; Trinculo, Gattie ; 
 Alonso, Archer ; Hippolito, Miss S. Booth ; Miranda, 
 Miss Povey ; Dorinda, Miss Stephens ; Ariel, first time, 
 Madame Vestris. Two editions of the Tempest have 
 been published in Phonetic spelling: one in 1849 and 
 one in 1864. 
 
 The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 13 Editions. 
 In 1763, this Comedy, with alterations and additions by 
 Benjamin Victor, was produced at Drury Lane. The 
 alterations chiefly consist of the transpositions of scenes, 
 the combining of one act with another, the omission of 
 many speeches, the curtailment of others, and the intro- 
 duction of speeches written by Victor himself ; such 
 speeches, instead of adding to the strength of the 
 comedy or to the improvement of its acting, very mate- 
 rially detract from its general merits, and serve only to 
 produce much confusion and absurdity. Two fresh 
 scenes were added to the fifth act by Victor for the 
 purpose of introducing Speed and Lance, and they are 
 entirely unmeaning and unnecessary. Victor has also 
 added the following lines as a tag, which are spoken by 
 Proteus : — 
 
 " Thanks, generous Valentine : — and I myself 
 Will be the trumpet of my Julia's worth, 
 Her stedfast faith, her still enduring love, 
 And of my own misdoings — Pardon me, 
 Ye who have ever known what 'tis to err ! 
 And be this truth by all the world confess'd, 
 That lovers must be faithful to be bless'd." 
 
 In 1790, this comedy was revived at Covent Garden
 
 12 
 
 Theatre, with the addition of songs, duetts, glees and 
 choruses selected from the entire works of Shakspere. 
 In 1808, this comedy was altered by J. P. Kemble, 
 whose alterations are chiefly based upon Victor's ver- 
 sion. The additions made by Kemble are in very bad 
 taste, for he has adopted some of Victor's worst altera- 
 tions, at the same time accepting the consolidation of 
 the first and fourth scenes in the second act of the 
 original play. The poverty of thought and language 
 which marks the additions, when compared with the 
 comedy originally written, serves to prove that Kemble 
 was less familiar with the play of Shakspere than he 
 was with the mangled abortion of Victor's. In 1821, 
 Reynolds degraded this comedy into an opera, which 
 was produced at Covent Garden Theatre, on November 
 29th. This version was never printed, but it was said 
 that the speeches were so dipt, altered, transposed and 
 added to, that the strength and sweetness of Shakspere's 
 language was completely marred. The characterisation 
 of the comedy was also in a great measure destroyed, 
 and the whole production was executed in the worst 
 taste. What Dryden said of D'Urfey is equally appli- 
 cable to Reynolds, — " let him alone, he will do some- 
 thing worse presently." 
 
 Ttje Merry Wives of Windsor, 37 Editions. 
 This is one of the most mirthful comedies that Shak- 
 spere ever wrote. Its action is not only rapid but it is 
 extremely varied. Its characters are so broadly marked 
 that they cannot well fail to please ; yet in conjunction 
 with many other examples of the Shaksperean drama, 
 it has undergone much altering and adapting at the 
 hands of the self-installed improvers of the bard's text. 
 In 1702, John Dennis tried his cunning hand in seeking
 
 13 
 
 to destroy the great master's work, by adapting this 
 comedy and making it his own. His piece was called 
 " The Comical Gallant, or the Amours of Sir John 
 Falstaff.'' In this alteration Dennis has retained about 
 one-half of Shakspere's play, and he has also changed 
 the language of the scenes which he has retained. This 
 manipulation of the words of the poet by Dennis proves 
 his incapacity as a Shaksperean critic, and shows how 
 valueless must be any opinion which he has put forth 
 on the merits of Shakspere. The whole conduct of the 
 comedy is changed and Dennis has added one new 
 character, — the host of the Bull, a brother of Mrs. 
 Ford ; Mrs. Dorothy Tearsheet is substituted for Mrs. 
 Quickly, and Fenton and Anne Page are much enlarged. 
 The following syllabus of Dennis's comedy will show 
 the changes : — 
 
 Act i st begins with Fenton and the Host of the 
 Garter — then comes a scene between Fenton and Anne 
 Page — Shallow, Slender and Sir Hugh enter — Falstaff 
 discharges Pistol and Nym — Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford 
 compare the letters — the act concludes with a poor 
 scene between Page and Ford. 
 
 Act 2. Mrs. Dorothy comes to Falstaff with a 
 message from Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page — Ford visits 
 Falstaff as Broom. This scene is materially altered. 
 Dr. Caius and Sir Hugh quarrel, and are reconciled. 
 
 Act 3. The scene lies at the Bull Inn — Falstaff and 
 Mrs. Ford meet by appointment — Mrs. Page enters, 
 disguised as Captain Dingboy — she pretends to have an 
 intrigue with Mrs. Ford and frightens Falstaff by dis- 
 charging a pistol at him — on the approach of Ford, 
 Falstaff is carried off in a buck basket — Mrs. Page beats 
 Ford — her peruke falls off and she is discovered. 
 
 Act 4. Falstaff and Ford, as Broom, have a second
 
 14 
 
 meeting"— the Host of the Bull tells Ford that Falstaff 
 and Mrs. Ford are to meet at Heme's Oak— Anne Page 
 has a scene with Fenton and another with Slender — the 
 latter is chiefly from Shakspere's first act. 
 
 Act 5. Mrs. Ford says her husband is gone to 
 London— Falstaff enters to Mrs. Ford, and Mrs. Page, 
 as Heme the Hunter — a terrible symphony is heard — 
 Falstaff secretes himself in a tuft of trees — the pretended 
 fairies bring in Ford, dressed as Falstaff — they sing a 
 song and beat Ford to a stockfish — Falstaff escapes un- 
 hurt — Ford is cured of his jealousy — Slender and Dr. 
 Caius enter, both of them in women's clothes and 
 masked — Fenton and Anne Page enter, unmasked — 
 Slender and Dr. Caius fight, for the Host of the Garter, 
 disguised as a parson, has married Dr. Caius to Slender. 
 
 In 1797, J. P- Kemble altered this comedy, and a 
 second edition of his alteration was published in 1804. 
 In 1824, this comedy was converted into an opera by 
 Reynolds, and produced at Drury Lane Theatre on June 
 1 st. The alterations and additions made in this version 
 were wretchedly conceived and equally as badly exe- 
 cuted, yet the opera ran for thirty-two nights. The 
 manner in which the songs were introduced by Reynolds 
 one example will suffice. In the scene, after the duel 
 between Sir Hugh and Dr. Caius had terminated, and 
 the characters had withdrawn, Fenton enters and says, 
 u How I love this spot, where dear Anne Page so often 
 has met me and confessed her love ! — Ha ! I think the 
 sky is overcast, — the wind too blows like an approaching 
 storm ; well — let it blow on — I am prepared to brave its 
 fury," and he then sings " Blow, blow, thou winter's 
 wind." 
 
 Twelfth Night, 20 Editions. In 1 663, this Comedy
 
 15 
 
 was altered and produced at the Theatre, Lincoln's Inn 
 Fields, the character of Viola being omitted in the 
 representation. The omission of Viola must have ma- 
 terially detracted from the interest of the comedy, for 
 the involution and perplexity of its plot is much added 
 to through Viola's assumption of male attire. The 
 fulness of love, though tinged with melancholy, which 
 marks the Duke's character, could have had no develop- 
 ment without the presence of Viola, whose love is filled 
 with sweet and tender emotion, and distinguished by its 
 grace and purity. In 1703, this comedy was altered by 
 C. Burnaby, and produced under the title of " Love 
 Betrayed, or the Agreeable Disappointment," at the 
 Theatre, Lincoln's Inn Fields. This is a very poor 
 alteration of Shakspere's comedy, the depth and power 
 of the language is materially changed, though the plot 
 and the main incidents are preserved. The names of 
 the characters are changed, much of the dialogue is 
 written afresh, and two new characters, Pedro, servant 
 to Sebastian, and Dromia, an old lady, are introduced. 
 Moreno, Drances, Roderique and Villaretta are taken 
 from the Duke, Sir Toby, Antonio and Olivia. In the 
 year 1820, Frederic Reynolds converted this comedy 
 into an opera, which was produced at Covent Garden 
 Theatre, on November 8th, and it ran seventeen nights. 
 This degradation of Shakspere was never printed, and 
 wisely so, for its author's sake, for his alterations were 
 said to be of the most wretched character. 
 
 Measure for Measure, 16 Editions. In 1662, 
 this play was altered by Sir W.jDavenant, and produced 
 at Lincoln's Inn Theatre, on February 18th, where 
 it met with great success. It was published under
 
 16 
 
 the title of " The Law against Lovers." * In this 
 version, Davenant has combined the two plays of 
 Measure for Measure and Much Ado about Nothing, for 
 the characters of Benedick and Beatrice are added to 
 the dramatis personse. Davenant has also introduced a 
 variety of songs and dances in which Escalus, Benedick 
 and Beatrice take part. He has also introduced a new 
 character, one Viola, a younger sister of Beatrice, who 
 dances a saraband to the accompaniment of castag- 
 nettes. He has so altered the language by cutting out 
 the poetic expressions and by the adoption of everyday 
 phrases, that the force and richness of the language of 
 Shakspere is almost annihilated. The following speech 
 from the fourth scene of the first act is a fair specimen 
 of how Davenant understood the elder bard and how he 
 treated him : — 
 
 " None, holy father, better knows than you, 
 How I have ever lik'd a life retir'd ; 
 And still have weary of assemblies been, 
 Where witless youth comes drest to be ador'd. 
 I have delivered to Lord Angelo 
 (A man of strictness, and firm abstinence), 
 My absolute pow'r and place here in Turin ; 
 And he believes me travelling to Spain ; 
 Now (pious sir) you will demand of me, 
 Why I do this? " 
 
 The whole plan and organism of the play is entirely 
 destroyed by Davenant, for instead of a complete unity 
 of design, he gives a series of scenes, intrigues and 
 events which produce the wildest and most extravagant 
 confusion, destroying the characterisation by changing 
 the motives which engender action, and the plot is so 
 
 * Tepys, in his diary, thus alludes to this comedy : " I went thither and saw ' The Law 
 against Lovers,' a good play and well performed, especially the little girl's (whom I never 
 I before) dancinp and singing ; and were it not for her, the losse of Eoxalana would 
 ■■P'/il the house."— Vol. I., i
 
 17 
 
 much marred, that it becomes " flat, stale and unpro- 
 fitable." In 1700, this play was much altered by C. 
 Gildon, and produced under the title of " Beauty, the 
 best Advocate," at the Theatre, Lincoln's Inn Fields. 
 Many of the alterations of Sir W. Davenant were also 
 adopted by Gildon, whose own alterations of the Shak- 
 sperean text are decidedly much worse than his prede- 
 cessor. He omits the whole of the comic characters, 
 and with the exception of the scene between the Duke 
 and the Friar, the whole of the first act is omitted. 
 Claudio is represented as privately married to Julietta, 
 and Angelo to Mariana. The part of the Duke is 
 reduced to a very insignificant one, and a strange 
 assortment of blunders are introduced. Scenes and 
 incidents are transposed and shuffled at his will, while 
 the language is most fearfully mutilated. To make 
 Shakspere palatable to the taste of the period, Gildon 
 has introduced four musical entertainments, in each of 
 which occurs a dance, thus combining, as he no doubt 
 thought, the advantages of the opera and the ballet, 
 with the language and characterisation of the poet. In 
 1789, J. P. Kemble produced a revised edition at Drury 
 Lane; and in 1803, another revised edition at Covent 
 Garden Theatre. 
 
 Much Ado about Nothing, 28 Editions. In 1737, 
 this Comedy was altered by James Miller, and produced 
 at Drury Lane Theatre on February 28th, under the title 
 of " The Universal Passion." This alteration is one 
 among the worst ever perpetrated, for not content with 
 borrowing from and altering Shakspere, Miller has also 
 borrowed from and altered Moliere's " Princess of Elis." 
 Though the works of two dramatists are thus laid under 
 contribution to furnish this nondescript of a play, the 
 
 C
 
 18 
 
 result does not in the slightest degree redound to the 
 credit, but rather to the disgrace of this borrower and 
 mutilator of other men's works. The first four acts are 
 derived in about equal portions from the text of 
 Shakspere and Moliere, while the adapter, the better to 
 strengthen his production, causes Bellario, the Claudio 
 of the original comedy, to speak some lines from the 
 " Two Gentlemen of Verona." This version succeeded 
 in running nine nights. In 1799, it was adapted by 
 J. P. Kemble, and two other editions were published of 
 his adaptation : one in 18 10 and one in 18 15. 
 
 A Midsummer Night's Dream,* 42 Editions. In 
 1646, this Comedy was altered by Robert Cox, and the 
 comical part was published under the title of "The 
 Merry conceited Humours of Bottom the Weaver," and 
 again in 1661. In 1681, the fifth edition was published 
 under the title of " Piramus and Thisbe." In 1692, it 
 was represented as an opera, and called " The Fairy 
 Queen." Many changes are made in this version, but 
 those made in the fifth act are of a most singular 
 character. Hippolita is omitted, the goddess Juno 
 appears in a machine, the peacocks spread their tails, 
 then the scene changes to a Chinese garden, then a 
 male and female Chinese sing, six monkies dance, and 
 Oberon and Titania speak a sort of epilogue. In 17 16, 
 it was altered and played under the title of "A Comic 
 Masque of Pyramus and Thisbe," by Richard Leveridge, 
 who says, " I have made bold to dress out the original 
 in recitative and airs after the present Italian mode." 
 
 Pi pj , in his Diary thus ezpre sea his opinion of this truly poetic play: "To the 
 theatre, where we bew 'Midsummer's Night's Dream,' which I had never seen 
 in, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in 
 mj lii -16,
 
 10 
 
 In this year, a mock opera, Pyramus and Thisbe, the 
 words taken from Shakspere, was produced at Covent 
 Garden Theatre, the music by J. F. Lampe. Another 
 edition of this version was published in 1745. In 1755, 
 this comedy was converted into an opera by David 
 Garrick, and published under the title of " The Fairies;" 
 the songs being derived from Shakspere, Milton, Waller, 
 Dryden, Lansdowne, Hammond and others. In 1755, a 
 second edition of this version was published, and a third 
 in 1756. In 1763, it was again altered by Garrick, and 
 produced at Drury Lane Theatre on November 14th, 
 under the title of " A Fairy Tale." This alteration was 
 not a success, for it was only played one night. Among 
 the omissions made by the adapter, nearly the whole of 
 the mock play was cut out, and many other equally 
 absurd alterations were indulged in. However great 
 Garrick may have been as a mime, he most certainly 
 was not possessed of the necessary poetic power to 
 improve the works of the master he so frequently sought 
 to do. It is said that Colman assisted Garrick in this 
 adaptation, but such statement is not correct, he only 
 superintended the rehearsals at Garrick's express desire. 
 In 1 77 1, it was re-printed under the title of " The Fairy 
 Queen," a masque. Under the title of " Pyramus and 
 Thisbe," a pantomime was played at Birmingham, in 
 1798. In 1 8 16, it was altered and added to by F. 
 Reynolds, and again altered by J. R. Planche in 1 840. 
 
 Love's Labour Lost, 13 Editions. In 1762, "The 
 Students " was adapted for the stage from this comedy. 
 Like most of those who sought to adapt Shakspere, the 
 adapter has left out too much of the original text and 
 inserted too much of his own. In this alteration the 
 incidents are changed as well as the language, for Biron
 
 20 
 
 is made to put on Costard's coat — in this disguise he 
 speaks part of what belongs to Costard, and is mistaken 
 for him by several of the characters. The curate and 
 schoolmaster are omitted, but one of the pedantic 
 speeches belonging to the latter character is absurdly- 
 given to a player. This alteration was never acted. 
 
 The Merchant of Venice, 50 Editions. In 1701, 
 this Comedy was altered by George Granville, Lord 
 Lansdowne, and played under the title of " The Jew of 
 Venice," at the Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre. In the 
 second act of this alteration, the characters of Lancelot 
 Gobbo and old Gobbo are entirely omitted, and in the 
 third act the part of Tubal is struck out. In act 2, the 
 masque of Peleus and Thetis is introduced, and during 
 the performance of the masque Shylock sups at a 
 separate table and drinks a toast to his lady-love, 
 Money. The other additions made by Granville are 
 most contemptible, the meaning of Shakspere being 
 entirely misconstrued and misunderstood. The purpose 
 of the author of this alteration seems to have been to 
 exalt the character of Bassanio and to convert Shylock 
 into a comic, instead of a tragic, character. Some of 
 the lines he has inserted, and which are spoken by the 
 Jew, are in a comic vein ; and in this version, the part 
 of Shylock was personated by Doggett, the comedian. 
 With becoming modesty, the ghost of Shakspere, in the 
 prologue, is made to say : — 
 
 " The first rude sketches Shakspere's pencil drew, 
 But all the shining master-strokes are new. 
 This play, ye critics, shall your fury stand, 
 Adorn'd and rescued by a faultless hand ; 
 These scenes in their rough native dress were mine, 
 But now, imgrov'd, with noble lustre shine." 
 
 Four editions of this version were published : one in
 
 21 
 
 1701, one in 1711, one in 1713, and one in 1732. In 
 1773 another version of this comedy was published, with 
 alterations and insertions for acting ; a second edition 
 being published in 1777. In 1802, Dr. Valpy published 
 his alteration, which was represented at Reading in the 
 same year. In seeking to justify his course of action, 
 the learned doctor appeals to the labour of those who 
 had preceded him in the work of alteration and 
 improvement — Dryden, Tate, Cibber and Garrick. Their 
 efforts he held had been highly successful, inasmuch as 
 their adaptations and alterations were applauded by the 
 audiences who witnessed the representations, and he, 
 therefore, deduces his right to follow their example, 
 forgetting that the principle of seeking to improve 
 Shakspere had always been condemned by those critics 
 who understood the grandeur, scope and aim of the 
 Shaksperean drama. In 1849, was published at Oxford, 
 "The Merchant of Venice, Travestie," a burlesque in 
 one act, by the author of "Macbeth, Travestie." In 
 1862, the Members of the Swanwick Shakspere circle 
 published their version, under the title of " The most 
 excellent Historie of the Merchant of Venice," abbre- 
 viated and adapted for social reading. In 1876, an 
 expurgated edition of this play was published. It was 
 adapted for reading aloud and was edited by Mr. H. 
 Cundell. 
 
 As You Like It, 25 Editions. In 1723, this Comedy 
 was altered by C. Johnson, and produced at Drury Lane 
 Theatre, on January gth, under the title of " Love in a 
 Forest." This is a most wretched alteration, the 
 character of the comedy is much changed, and, as usual 
 with the improvers of Shakspere, the alteration is for 
 the worse. The characters of Phcebe, Sylvius, the old
 
 22 
 
 shepherd Corin, William, Audrey and the incomparable 
 Touchstone, are omitted. The wrestling scene is 
 changed into a passage of arms between various 
 knights ; Orlando is accused of treason, and the 
 speeches of the scene between Bolingbroke and the 
 Duke of Norfolk, from Richard II., are introduced. The 
 lines of Rosalind are added to by the speech of Viola, 
 from Twelfth Night, " she never told her love " being 
 given to her. A part of Much Ado about Nothing is 
 introduced into the third act, for Jacques borrows very 
 freely the speeches of Benedick. The fifth act consists 
 chiefly of a burlesque of Pyramus and Thisbe, and the 
 would-be censor of mankind, the self-elected moralist, 
 Jacques, is made to marry Celia, instead of going to see 
 the Duke, who " hath put on a religious life." In 1739, 
 it was again altered by a member of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge, and was published under the title of " The 
 Modern Receipt, or a Cure for Love." In 1809, an 
 additional scene to this play was written by Mr. Mozer, 
 and printed in The European Magazine. In 18 10, it 
 was altered and revised by J. P. Kemble. In 1824, this 
 charming comedy was converted into an opera by the 
 means of additional songs, glees and choruses, and was 
 produced at Covent Garden Theatre on December 10th : 
 Rosalind, Miss M. Tree ; Celia, Miss Hammersley. In 
 1825, this version was produced at the Haymarket 
 Theatre; Madame Vestris appearing as Rosalind, Vining 
 as Orlando, and Dowton as Touchstone. 
 
 All's Well that Ends Well, ii Editions. In 
 1785, this Comedy was altered by Mr. Pilon and reduced 
 to three acts. It was produced at the Haymarket 
 Theatre on July 26th and repeated on the 28th. This 
 version, however, was never printed. In 1793, it was
 
 23 
 
 adapted by J. P. Kemble, and again revised by him in 
 1 81 1 ; a second edition of this version being published 
 in 1 815. 
 
 The Taming ofthe Shrew, 31 Editions. In 1698, 
 this delightful Comedy was altered by J. Lacey, and 
 published under the title of " Sawney the Scot, or the 
 Taming of a Shrew." A second edition was published 
 in 1 7 14. The names of the characters are mostly 
 changed in this version : Grumio is converted into a 
 Scotch servingman, the induction is omitted, the 
 dialogue is reduced to prose, and the fifth act is in a 
 great measure new. Margaret, having returned to her 
 father's house, determines to have another struggle for 
 superiority — she scolds till she tires, then becomes sullen, 
 and Petruchio proceeds to bury her alive, and then she 
 submits to his rule. In 17 16, it was altered into a farce 
 by Charles Johnson, for the Drury Lane Company, and 
 published as " The Cobbler of Preston." In the same 
 year it was altered by Christopher Bullock, for the 
 company at the New Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields. 
 This version was also published as " The Cobbler of 
 Preston," a second edition appearing in 1755. In 1735, 
 the comedy was converted into a ballad opera, by 
 J. Worsdale, and published under the title of " A Cure 
 for a Scold." In 1756, it was altered by David Garrick, 
 and published as " Katharine and Petruchio." Of this 
 alteration, the best that can be said for it, is, that it is a 
 farce of the broadest character, amounting to extrava- 
 gance, in which the language of Shakspere is sadly 
 pruned and diverted from its original meaning. In 
 1828, " The Taming of the Shrew" was converted into 
 an opera, by Reynolds, and produced at Drury Lane 
 Theatre, on May 24th. Despite the strength of the cast,
 
 24 
 
 this version was not successful, for it was only acted 
 four times. 
 
 The Winter's Tale, 29 Editions. Six alterations 
 of this play have been published. The first alteration 
 was by Macnamara Morgan, under the title of " Florizell 
 and Perdita, or the Sheep-shearing; " of this alteration, 
 two editions were published : one in 1754 and the other 
 in 1767. This version only contained two acts, and the 
 large additions which are made to the character of 
 Antolycus are wretchedly inferior to the language of 
 Shakspere. This version was produced at Covent 
 Garden Theatre on March 25th, 1754, and brought out 
 again by Barry at the Dublin Theatre in 1755. In 1756, 
 the second alteration was effected by Charles Marsh. In 
 1756, the third alteration was effected by David Garrick, 
 under the title of "Florizell and Perdita, a dramatic 
 pastoral," and was produced at Drury Lane Theatre, on 
 January 21st. Two other editions of this alteration were 
 published — one in 1762 and one in 1785. Garrick always 
 professed a profound love and admiration for Shakspere 
 and he constantly expressed his desire to preserve every 
 fragment of his works. This intention he also pro- 
 claimed in the prologue which he wrote for his version 
 of The Winter's Tale : — 
 
 " Lest, then, this precious liquor run to waste, 
 'Tis now confined and bottled to your taste ; 
 'Tis my chief wish, my joy, my only plan, 
 To lose no drop of that immortal man." 
 
 How well he carried out his intention and fulfilled his 
 desire, is evidenced in the fact that the first three acts 
 of Shakspere's play were entirely omitted by him. It 
 opens with a room at the court of Bohemia, in which 
 enters M Camillo and a Gentleman ; " Camillo informs
 
 2o 
 
 the latter of the events, supposed to have occurred before 
 the opening of the play, such as the visit of Polixenes to 
 Leontes, the latter's jealousy, the trial and imprison- 
 ment of Hermione, the birth of the child and its exposure, 
 the defiance of Leontes and his subsequent years of 
 remorse. The second scene is the " Country by the 
 Seaside." The Shepherd enters and speaks Shakspere's 
 words, — and then enters his son, who describes a ship- 
 wreck he has witnessed, — then enters Leontes and 
 Cleomines who have been wrecked. The chief part of 
 the comic interest has been retained, but the remainder 
 of the play is a mere mosaic, the last two acts of 
 Shakspere's text being worked in with a good deal of 
 Garrick's rubbish. The quality of the language and the 
 nature of the alterations made by Garrick are best 
 shown by the following quotation from the dialogue, 
 which demonstrates most effectively, how weak and 
 puerile are Garrick's innovations : — 
 
 Cleom. Bear up, my liege ; again welcome on shore. 
 Leon. Flatter me not — in death distinctions cease. 
 
 Am I on shore ; walk I on land, from land, 
 
 Or ride I yet upon the billow's backs ? 
 
 Methinks I feel the motion. Who art thou ? 
 Cleom. Know you me not ? — your friend Cleomenes. 
 Leon. Where are my other friends ? What ! perished all ? 
 Cleom. Not a soul saved ! ourselves, are all the crew — 
 
 Pilot, shipmaster, boatswain, sailors all. 
 Leoti. Laud we the gods ? Yet wherefore perished they, 
 
 Innocent souls, and I, will all my guilt 
 
 Live yet to load the earth. Oh, righteous gods, 
 
 Your ways are past the line of man to fathom. 
 Cleom. Waste not your small remaining strength of body 
 
 In warring with your mind. This desert waste 
 
 Has some inhabitants. Here's help at hand. 
 
 Good day, old man. 
 Old Shefi. Never said in worse time — a better to both 
 
 Your worships. Command us, sir. 
 Clown. You have been sweetly soaked ; give the 
 
 Gods thanks that you are alive to feel it.
 
 26 
 
 Leon. We are most thankful, sir. 
 
 Cleom. What deserts are these same ? 
 
 Old Shep. The deserts of Bohemia. 
 
 Leon. Sayest thou Bohemia ? Ye gods, Bohemia ! 
 In every act your judgments are sent forth 
 Against Leontes ? Here to be wrecked and saved 
 Upon this coast ! All the wrongs I have done 
 Stir now afresh within me. Did I not 
 Upon this coast expose my harmless infant — 
 Bid Polixenes (falsely deemed the father) 
 To take this child. O hell-born jealousy, 
 All but myself most innocent — and now 
 Upon this coast ! Pardon Hermione.* 
 
 In 1760, the fourth alteration was effected by turning 
 the comedy into an opera, and adding - several new 
 songs for Florizell and Perdita to suit the prevailing 
 taste of the age. C. Colman effected the fifth alteration, 
 his work being entitled " The Sheep-shearing," and 
 was published in 1777. This alteration is not really 
 based upon Shakspere's Winter's Tale, but chiefly upon 
 Garrick's miserable alteration of that play. In 1785, 
 this play was altered and adapted to the stage by J. P. 
 Kemble. 
 
 The Comedy of Errors, 16 Editions. In 17 16, 
 an alteration of this Comedy was produced at the 
 theatre, Lincoln's Inn Fields, under the title of " Every- 
 body's Mistakes." This production was never printed. 
 In 1779, this comedy was altered and adapted by 
 Thomas Hull ; the second edition of this alteration being 
 
 * That Garrick's detestable alterations met 'with some rebuke at the time they were 
 produced, is shown in a dissertation delivered at the Haymarket Theatre in 1756 :— " "Were 
 Shakspere's ghost to rise," says Cibber, " would he not frown indignation on this pilfering 
 pedlar in poetry, who thus shamefully mangles, mutilates and emasculates his plays. The 
 M3d ummer's Night's Dream has been minced and fricaseed into a thing called the Fairies— 
 tli. Winter's Tale mammoxed into a droll— and the Tempest castrated into an opera, yet 
 tlii- Bly prince would insinuate all this ill-usage of the bard is owing, forsooth, to his love 
 <>f bam much BUCh a mock proof of his tender regard as the cobbler's drubbing his wife. 
 X.. wonder Shakspere's name is insulted by foreigners, while he is tamely suffered to be 
 tini • maltreated at home."
 
 27 
 
 published in 1793. This comedy was also altered and 
 reduced by W. Woods to three acts. This alteration, 
 without improvement, was called "The Twins," and 
 three editions of the same were published, — one in 1780, 
 one in 1786, and the third possesses no date. In 1780, 
 an alteration by John Philip Kemble was produced at 
 York, under the title of " Its Impossible." In this 
 version Kemble converted the two Dromios into two 
 black servants, contriving not only to puzzle the 
 audience but also the actors. Other foolish alterations 
 were made to the disadvantage of the comedy. This 
 version was never printed. In 181 1, Hull's adaptation 
 underwent a revision by J. P. Kemble, and a second 
 edition was published in 18 15. In 1820, this comedy 
 was turned into an opera by Reynolds, the dramatist, 
 who added several scenes, none of which were any 
 improvement. To the printed copy of this literary 
 murder Reynolds did not put his name, though in his 
 life he acknowledges the fact.
 
 HISTORIES. 
 
 King JotiN, 37 Editions. This history was first 
 produced in 1596, and was first published in 1623. Two 
 editions of a play " The Troublesome Raigne of John, 
 King of England," were published in 161 1 and 1622, 
 bearing the initials of " W. S.," but this play was not 
 written by Shakspere. In 1744, Shakspere's play 
 was altered by Colley Gibber and produced under the 
 title of " Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John." 
 This alteration by Cibber is a very bad one, for he has 
 completely spoilt the characters of Falconbridge and 
 Constance, and so changed the language that the intent 
 and meaning of the play are entirely destroyed. Cibber 
 modestly says in his dedication to Philip, Earl of 
 Chesterfield, " I have endeavoured to make it more like 
 a play than what I found it in Shakespear, and if your 
 Lordship should find it so, my ambition has no further 
 views." In 1750, this history underwent another altera- 
 tion, a new set of choruses were added after the manner 
 of the ancients, to be sung at the end of each act. In 
 1800, it was altered by Dr. Valpy, and a second edition 
 of his alteration was published in 1803, and on May 20th 
 of the same year, this version was produced at Covent 
 Garden Theatre, but it did prove successful. It was 
 originally done to be acted by the boys of his own school. 
 This alteration does not redound to the credit of the 
 learned doctor ; for he omits the first act of Shakspere,
 
 29 
 
 introduces some lines from Papal Tyranny, spoils the 
 character of Falconbridge, and commits other follies 
 unbecoming a Shaksperean editor, who professes to 
 hold a high admiration of the genius of the poet, com- 
 bined with a strong love of his productions ; his alteration 
 is but a mosaic that clearly displays a want of compre- 
 hension, a lack of understanding the high qualities, the 
 patriotism and truthfulness of characterisation which 
 Shakspere evinces in this history. In 1800, it was also 
 altered and revised by J. P. Kemble; two other editions 
 of his alteration being published: one in 1804, and one 
 in 18 14. In 1837, a burlesque under the title of " King 
 John with the benefit of the Act," was written by Gilbert 
 A'Becket. 
 
 Richard II., 30 Editions. In 1681, Nahum Tate 
 altered this play, and produced it under the title of 
 " The Sicilian Usurper," a second edition of which was 
 published in 1691. This alteration of Tate's only serves 
 to disfigure the text of Shakspere, and to display the 
 weakness of Tate, whose additions to the text are of the 
 most insipid character. Tate has introduced more low 
 comedy into his version, and he also changes the 
 character of the Duke of York, giving him a comic vein, 
 making him a mountain of flesh, so that, to use his own 
 words, " he can scarce carry his own fat." In this 
 alteration, Tate's modesty is of so pure a nature, that he 
 fails not to boast that he has heightened the character 
 and added to the strength of the frivolous Richard, 
 whose harsh measures he seeks to palliate. The sym- 
 pathy which is felt for Shakspere' s Richard — which is 
 also the Richard of English history — is lost to a very 
 great extent in Tate's arrangement, who, in his anxiety 
 to display his intense respect for royalty, has destroyed
 
 30 
 
 the human interest evoked by the misfortunes of the 
 unfortunate monarch, who — 
 
 " every day under his household roof 
 Did keep ten thousand men." 
 
 Although Tate had changed the names of his characters, 
 altered the language and also changed the time and 
 locality of the events, the play was suppressed after two 
 representations, much to his disappointment. In 1720, it 
 was altered by Theobald. This alteration is a very bad 
 one. The first and second acts of the original play are 
 altogether omitted,while many absurdities are introduced. 
 Aumerle is made to be in love with Lady Percy, and 
 this attachment leads to the discovery of the conspiracy 
 against Bolingbroke ; for Aumerle, in pulling out his 
 handkerchief, also pulls out a parchment containing the 
 object and names of the conspirators ; this is found by 
 Northumberland, who gives it to Bolingbroke. In the 
 termination of this version, Theobald has made some 
 change. Richard is struck down by Exton, but he does 
 not die until the entrance of Northumberland and 
 Bolingbroke, the latter of whom asks — 
 
 Bol. " What noise of tumult did invade our ears ? 
 Ha ! Richard ! how came this ? 
 
 King. Question it not ; 
 
 Content, that all thy fears with me lie buried : 
 Unrivall'd wear the crown. O Isabella." [dies. 
 
 Screams are heard, then Ross enters, stating that Lady 
 Percy, hearing of the death of Aumerle, had drawn 
 from her side a secret dagger and plunged it in her 
 breast ; then York enters, and finding Richard dead, he 
 commits suicide, and Bolingbroke finishes the piece. 
 Even in the parts which are retained, Theobald has 
 sought to improve the poet's text by additions of his 
 own, but, like all other improvers of Shakspere, he has
 
 31 
 
 only proved his own weakness and folly. In 1772, it 
 was altered and the style imitated by Goodhall ; and in 
 1 8 15, it was published with alterations and additions, 
 by R. Wroughton. This version is a very poor one, 
 it is guilty of much omission and the additions are not 
 in the best taste. The Queen is introduced in the last 
 scene and speaks some lines from the tragedy of Lear. 
 On March 14, 1857, Richard II. was produced at the 
 Princess Theatre, by Mr. Charles Kean. There are 
 scarcely any changes of the text in this version, though 
 there are many omissions. Several scenes are struck 
 out, and this was rendered necessary by the manner 
 in which the play was put upon the stage. Mr. Kean 
 evidently intended to appeal to the eyes as well as the 
 ears of his audiences, the play being most elaborately 
 mounted, and the spectacular part nearly overwhelming 
 the action and language of the poet. A very extensive 
 and elaborate episode, an interpolation of Mr. Kean's, 
 was produced, representing a royal visit to the City in 
 the 14th century. This was very cleverly got up, and 
 the effect was marvellous. The incidents were numer- 
 ous, and the costumes historically correct ; so much so 
 that not only was the past most faithfully recalled, but 
 also the sensations belonging to it. Of this version 
 several editions were published. 
 
 HENRY IV., Part i., 29 Editions. In 1700, it was 
 altered and played by Thomas Betterton at the Lincoln's 
 Inn Fields Theatre, as " Henry the Fourth with the 
 Humours of Sir John Falstaff," and was first published 
 in the same year. Most of the alterations consist of 
 transpositions and omissions, among the latter, the 
 character of Lady Mortimer, is struck out. In 17 10, it 
 was altered again by the Hon. Mr. Greville ; a second
 
 32 
 
 edition of whose work was published in 172 i. On April 
 joth, 170.2, this history was played at Drury Lane 
 Theatre, the part of Hotspur being omitted from the 
 representation. In 18 10, it was revised by J. P. Kemble, 
 of whose revision two other editions were published, one 
 in 181 1 and one in 1815. 
 
 HENRY IV., Part II., 27 Editions. In 1700, this 
 History was revised and added to by Thomas Betterton, 
 who produced his alteration at Drury Lane Theatre, 
 under the title of "The Sequel to Henry IV., with the 
 Humours of Sir John Falstaff and Justice Shallow." In 
 this version Betterton has omitted much of Shakspere's 
 language, committed many alterations and perpetrated 
 several transpositions of scenes. The characters of 
 Lady Percy, the Earl of Northumberland, Lady North- 
 umberland and others are entirely left out. In act 1, 
 the first scene is omitted ; so also is the first scene in act 
 2. In act 3, scenes 1, 2 and 3 of act 4 are blended 
 together, the speeches being much contracted, and they 
 form a conclusion to Betterton's third act. Act 4, com- 
 mences with part of the first scene of act 3, containing 
 the king's soliloquy on sleep and then changes to scenes 
 4 and 5 of act 4, which are interwoven with each other, 
 though shorn of their fair proportions. Then follows 
 scene 3 from act 5, and this act terminates with scene 2 
 of act 5. Act 5, opens with scene 5 of the original play, 
 and the remainder of the act is composed of scenes 1 
 and 2 from act 1 of Henry V., and of scene 2 of act 2 
 from the same play. Two editions of this alteration 
 were published, — one in 17 10 and the other in 17 19. In 
 1760, William Kenrick produced a sequel to this history, 
 under the title of " Falstaff s Wedding, a Comedy, 
 written in imitation of Shakspere," and it is the only
 
 33 
 
 instance in our literature of any attempt to continue a 
 Shaksperean play, or part of one. The non-success of 
 preceding imitators of Shakspere did not act as a 
 deterrent to the learned Kenrick, who, wrapt up within 
 himself, fondly imagined that he would succeed where 
 others had failed ; forgetting that the characterisation, 
 force and sweetness of language which marks the works 
 of Shakspere, were wholly wanting in his own pro- 
 duction, and, therefore, the elements of success were 
 wanting in his play In 1761, a new version of this 
 history was produced on December 10th, at Covent 
 Garden Theatre, and was played for twenty-two nights. 
 From this version the characters of Silence and Justice 
 Shallow were omitted. In 1766, Kenrick's sequel was 
 played at Drury Lane Theatre, and it met with no 
 success. Two other editions of this comedy were 
 published, — one in 1766 and one in 1773. In i8oi,itwas 
 altered by Dr. Valpy, and in 1803, it was altered and 
 revised by J. P. Kemble ; two other editions being 
 published, — one in 18 14 and one in 181 5. In 182 1, this 
 history was revived at Covent Garden Theatre on June 
 25th, and it ran twenty-seven nights. Four additional 
 scenes were introduced, so that the coronation pageant 
 could be displayed. Scene 1, was the platform leading 
 to the Abbey ; scene 2, Westminster Abbey ; scene 3, 
 the cloisters of the Abbey and the return from West- 
 minster Hall ; scene 4, the grand banquet in West- 
 minster Hall, with the champion. Thus was sense 
 and poetry sacrificed to show and sound, and character 
 made to yield to spectacular display. In 1829, was 
 published "The Life and Humours of Falstaff; a 
 Comedy formed out of the two parts of Shakspere's 
 Henry the Fourth, and a few scenes of Henry V." In 
 1869, Mark Lemon adapted his entertainment, "The 
 
 D
 
 Story of Falstaff," from parts i and 2 of King Henry IV. 
 In this adaption, the story of the fat knight is most 
 consistently told, for it comprises " Falstaff, his fun and 
 folly, his amours, his breaches of the law, his robberies, 
 his soldiering, his lies, his guzzling, and finally his 
 downfall, his humiliation, his punishment." The text of 
 Shakspere is but little tampered with, except by excision 
 in this adaptation, which was published in 1871. 
 
 Henry Vth., 26 Editions. In 1664, Lord Orrery's 
 Henry V. was produced at the theatre, Lincoln's Inn 
 Fields, on August 13th, and first published in 1668. 
 This play bears no resemblance to Shakspere's, except 
 in the historical part thereof. There is one scene in 
 which his lordship seems to have the elder dramatist in 
 mind, and that is the scene in which the Salic Law is 
 debated by the French and English lords. In 1720, a 
 farce called " The Half-pay Officers," was produced at 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre. It is chiefly based upon 
 the comic parts of this history, the author acknowledging 
 his obligations to Shakspere and Davenant. In 1723, it 
 was altered by Aaron Hill, and produced at Drury Lane 
 Theatre on December 5th, under the title of " Henry V., 
 or the Conquest of France by the English," with sets of 
 scenes new to the play. In this alteration the whole of 
 the comic parts are omitted — no Pistol, Bardolph, Flu- 
 ellen appear ; and the charming scene between the king 
 and the soldiers is also struck out. The arrangements of 
 the acts are altogether different, act 1 commencing with 
 the first scene of the third act of Shakspere's play, then 
 it goes back to the second scene of act 1, and this going 
 backwards and forwards continues throughout. The 
 ches are also transposed from one character to 
 another, and to add to its strength, an entirely new
 
 35 
 
 character is introduced, Harriet, the niece of Lord 
 Scoop, whom the king is said to have seduced and 
 deserted. This play was only acted six times. A 
 second edition of this alteration was published in 1760. 
 In 1789, it was altered by curtailment by J. P. Kemble, 
 who in 1 80 1 revised his previous alteration. Two other 
 editions of this second revision were published, — one in 
 1806 and one in 1815. 
 
 Henry VI., Part 1., 7 Editions. In 1681, this 
 history was altered and improved (?) by John Crowne, 
 and was acted at the Dorset Garden Theatre. Though 
 published under the title of " Henry VI., part 1., with 
 the Murder of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester," it is 
 mainly composed of the first three acts of Shakspere's 
 Henry VI., part 2, and it closes with the death of the 
 Duke of Suffolk, and the breaking out of the rebellion 
 of Jack Cade. The dying scene of Cardinal Beaufort is 
 used and entirely spoilt by the weak inane additions of 
 Crowne, who introduces the ghost of Gloucester to 
 Beaufort, causing him to go off in a swoon. The play 
 thus altered, bad as it is, is a much better one than 
 most of those written at the time, owing to Crowne 
 having left in more than a usual quantity of the original 
 language in his version. 
 
 Henry VI., Part 11., 5 Editions. In 1680, this 
 history was altered by John Crowne, and in 1681, it was 
 produced at the Dorset Garden Theatre, under the title 
 of "Henry VI., part 2, or the Miserie of the Civil War." 
 This alteration is a good deal worse than the former 
 one, for the author does not forget to start with a false- 
 hood, for he says in his prologue, that — 
 
 " The divine Shakspere did not lay one stone ; "
 
 36 
 
 and yet his production is but a combination of Shaks- 
 pere's Henry VI., parts 2 and 3, with some additions 
 and many alterations. It opens with the scenes relative 
 to Jack Cade, who is killed by Clifford instead of Iden. 
 The second act begins with the battle of St. Albans, and 
 closes with the agreement between King Henry and 
 York. The third act lies at Sandal Castle, and is very 
 badly altered. In the fourth act Clifford dies — Lady 
 Grey is married to King Edward, who is afterwards 
 taken prisoner by Warwick. In the fifth act we have 
 the battle of Barnet ; the death of Warwick ; Margaret 
 and her son prisoners ; the ghost of Richard II. and a 
 good spirit appears to King Henry, who is killed by 
 Richard Plantaganet ; and King Edward concludes the 
 play. Crowne makes his Clifford fond of emphatic 
 expressions, for he puts into his mouth " Damn your 
 unlucky planets ; " " Oh ! damn all this — come, let's to 
 battle ; " and, when dying, he makes Clifford recover 
 enough to say, "Damnation on you all." In 1723, 
 Ambrose Phillips produced a play called " Humphrey, 
 Duke of Gloucester," which was acted at Drury Lane 
 Theatre on February 15th. This play is founded on 
 Shakspere's Henry VI., and though Phillips has not 
 borrowed a considerable number of lines from the poet's 
 play, he has made some singular alterations. To the 
 Duchess of Gloucester he has absurdly given several 
 speeches from Henry VI. Many of the lines of the 
 play are but poor imitations, deficient in strength, 
 warmth and sweetness, and distinguished by their cold- 
 ness and frigidity. In the death scene of Cardinal 
 Beaufort, Phillips has fallen into the same error that 
 befell the adaptor Crowne, not only has he weakened 
 it, but he has in reality completely spoilt it.
 
 37 
 
 Henry VI., Part in., 10 Editions. In 1720, Theo- 
 philus Cibber altered this history, but the alteration was 
 not published till 1723, a scond edition being published 
 in 1724. It was called "An Historical Tragedy of 
 the Civil Wars in the reign of King Henry VI., 
 being a Sequel to the Tragedy of Humphrey, Duke of 
 Gloucester." This alteration is not to the advantage 
 of the play, for it is based upon that of Crowne's, and 
 the chief advantage it possesses over that alteration, is 
 that it retains more of the original text. Many of the 
 incidents are changed, and the additions made by 
 Cibber, are distinguishable by their weakness and not 
 by their strength. In 1795, Dr. Valpy published his 
 historic tragedy of " The Roses ; or King Henry VI." 
 This play is principally compiled from Shakspere's 
 history, and a second edition was published in 18 10. In 
 181 7, Edmund Kean produced at Drury Lane Theatre, 
 " Richard, Duke of York," altered from Shakspere's 
 Henry VI. In 1830 a second edition of this alteration 
 was published. 
 
 Richard III.,* 50 Editions. This history was 
 written by Shakspere, not in his earliest days, but in 
 the early part of his manhood in the fulness of his 
 strength, for its versification is one grand sonorous 
 march, while its characterisation is remarkable for its 
 strength, depth and subtlety. Richard was the grand 
 central figure of the Wars of the Two Roses ; for in him 
 
 • The life and reign of Bichard in. was a very popular subject with English draruat ist.-\ 
 In 1583, Dr. Legge's "Bichardus Tertius," was acted at St. John's College, Cambridge, and 
 in 1594 " The True Tragedie of Bichard," was produced. A "Bichard Crookback," by Ben 
 Jonson and another dramatist was produced in 1602. " The English Princess, or the 
 Death of Bichard m.," by Caryl, was propuced at the Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre, on 
 March 7th, 1(367. This play is not an adaptation of Shakspere, nor does the author borrow 
 anything from Shakspere. Caryl's play is materially wanting in the elements of great- 
 ness and truly exhibits its own weakness when compared with Shakspere. Cibber in his 
 version of Bichard III., does not fail to borrow from Caryl,
 
 38 
 
 culminated all the craft, hypocrisy, audacity and 
 intellectuality of the Yorkist party, and his death on 
 Bosworth Field was the close of a great struggle ; a 
 struggle, not of an ordinary character, in which society 
 had been intensely interested, and whose interest 
 in that remarkable phase of our national affairs, had not 
 ceased, even at the period when the play was written. 
 Shakspere, who is always true to history, and to 
 the poetic solution and development of the law of 
 humanity, fails not to draw the character of Richard as 
 it should be drawn, and, therefore, the tinkering of 
 petty adapters serves not only to mar, but to destroy 
 the beauty, sublimity and completeness of the history as 
 conceived and rendered by Shakspere. This work 
 written in the pride of his intellectual powers has under- 
 gone most fearful mutilation by several adapters, fore- 
 most among whom may be mentioned Colley Cibber,* 
 whose version, produced at Drury Lane Theatre in 1700, 
 still keeps the stage. In the Cibberian version there is 
 not much more than five hundred lines of the original 
 play introduced, whole scenes being taken from the 
 other histories of Shakspere, and lines and speeches dipt 
 and shorn of their fair proportions in accordance with 
 the truer taste and the higher and fuller knowledge of 
 the dramatic art, which this despicable adapter, imagined 
 he possessed over the incomparable master. Cibber's 
 garbled version is still adopted by country managers 
 
 • Cibber chose to play the part of Eichard on the production of the history, and his 
 performance was thus described by a contemporary: — he "screamed through four acts 
 without dignity or decency : the audience ill-pleased with the farce, accompanied him with 
 a smile of contempt ; but in the fifth act, he degenerated all at once into Sir Novelty ; and 
 when in the heat of the battle of Bosworth Field, the king is dismounted, our comic- 
 tragedian came on the stage, really breathless, and in a seeming panick, screaming out 
 this line thus — A Ilarse, a Harse ; my kingdom for a Harse — this highly delighted some and 
 disgusted others of his auditors ; and when he was killed by Richmond, one might plainly 
 perceive that the good people were not better pleased that so execrable a tyrant was 
 destroyed, than that so execrable an actor was silent." — Quoted in Genest's History of the 
 Stay,, v.,1. 2, v 218.
 
 and starring actors, and by them submitted to the 
 dramatic public as Shakspere's Richard III. Not less 
 than twenty-one editions of this bastard version have 
 been published. In 1815, an adaptation by James 
 Wrighten, was published. In 1820, a Mr. Bridgman 
 tried his hand at altering this history for the stage; and 
 in 182 1, Mr. W. Macready, made the first attempt to 
 introduced the play somewhat nearer to the original text 
 than had hitherto been done since the year 1 700. The 
 production of this version proceeded from a strong 
 desire on the part of the great actor, to restore the 
 original character and language of Shakspere, and in 
 direct opposition to the version of Colley Cibber, which 
 the bulk of the play-going public had applauded as the 
 true Shaksperean drama. None of the extraneous 
 matter was contained in this version, but many omis- 
 sions had to be made to adapt it to representation. It 
 was, however, very faulty in its construction, and the re- 
 vival was much mismanaged. It was played at Covent 
 Garden Theatre on March 1 2th, and it was not success- 
 ful, although Mr. Macready was much praised in Gloster 
 and Mr. Egerton was much applauded as Clarence. On 
 the 19th of the same month it was again played, and 
 then it was consigned to the tomb of the Capulets, for 
 it was played no more. On February 26th, 1844, a 
 burlesque of this history was produced at the Strand 
 Theatre. It was in one act and written by Mr. Charles 
 Selby, comedian. In March, 1845, Richard III., was 
 produced at the Sadler Wells Theatre, by Mr. S. Phelps. 
 This was the play as wrote by Shakspere, and not the 
 ordinary compilation of Colley Cibber which passes 
 current for the true piece. In the poet's own play the 
 character of Richard is essentially different to the 
 Richard of Cibber's clap-trap rifacimento, for in the
 
 40 
 
 latter the higher qualities of character are sacrificed to 
 rapid action, The Shaksperean drama moves beneath 
 a weight of thought and circumstance requiring much 
 care and attention, and this phase is entirely lost in 
 Cibber's version, for he inserts the murder of Henry 
 VI. in the Tower, forgetting, or not perceiving that the 
 necessity for such murder had passed away from the 
 brain of Gloster at the opening of the play. Richard 
 has now become powerful, and he delegates to others 
 the perf >rmance of deeds which he deems necessary to 
 his purpose and his safety. Not by physical acts of his 
 own, but by the power of his intellect he henceforth 
 rules, for to his mental power everything must yield. 
 The intellectual superiority which Richard possesses and 
 feels he does possess, causes him to indulge in displays 
 of humour, spleen and sarcasm, and to sport with the 
 minds of others as well as his own. In the melo- 
 dramatic hash of Cibber, the chief feature of the 
 principal character — his intellectual superiority — is 
 submerged, while the language is terribly marred and 
 mutilated. In Shakspere's play the language and 
 thought are in unison with each other, and the true 
 height of poetry and passion is constantly sustained. 
 This production by Mr. Phelps was most successful, for 
 it ran a great number of nights. This revolution in 
 managerial taste — and no less a word describes it — won 
 general praise ; and it was not undeservedly said, that 
 the revival was a histrionic triumph to which it would 
 be difficult to find a parallel in modern times. In 1870, 
 Mr. C. Calvert produced this history according to the 
 text of Shakspere in the autumn of the year, at the 
 Prince's Theatre, Manchester. This revival was highly 
 successful, running not less than sixty-nine nights. On 
 January 29th, 1877, Richard III. was produced at the
 
 41 
 
 Lyceum Theatre, by Mr. J. H. Irving, who with praise- 
 worthy admiration of the great master's works, placed 
 Shakspere's play, not the Cibberian compilation, upon 
 the Lyceum stage. In the intellectual phase of Richard's 
 character, his sarcasm and his grim humour, are said to 
 have been well personated by Air. Irving. 
 
 Henry VIIL, 26 Editions. In 1753, a version of this 
 history was produced, in which some alterations were 
 effected in the language and some omissions were 
 indulged in. This version was again produced at 
 Covent Garden Theatre on November 6th, 1773. In 
 ^S, Joseph Grove published this history under the 
 title of " The Life of Henry VIIL, by Mr. William 
 Shakspere, in which are interspersed Historical Notes, 
 Moral Reflections and Observations, in respect to the 
 unhappy fate Cardinal Wolsey met w T ith." In 1805, it 
 was revised and altered by J. P. Kemble, a second 
 edition of his revision being published in 181 5. In this 
 version of Kemble's, there are many inaccuracies of the 
 text, and much of Shakspere's language is omitted. The 
 scene between the Queen and the two Cardinals which 
 begins the third act is left out, and in the third scene of 
 the first act some lines are introduced which cannot be 
 found in the original text. Kemble's alteration cannot 
 be looked upon as any improvement upon the version of 
 1753, inasmuch as he omits more of the original text 
 and indulges in more alterations, transposing speeches 
 from one character to another, thus destroying the 
 characterization of the poet and at the same time 
 demonstrating his own folly and weakness, in seeking 
 to improve the productions of an author whom he so 
 frequently misinterpreted and misunderstood. His 
 various revised versions furnish the fullest evidence "t 
 
 E
 
 12 
 
 the fact. Lines, like the following, do not possess the 
 true Shaksperean ring, and though added by the revisor 
 they do not add to the strength of the play : — 
 
 Lord Chamberlain. Your lordship shall along, 
 Lord Sands. Ay, ay ; if the beauties are there, 
 
 I must make one among them, to be sure. 
 
 The first act is concluded by a speech of the king 
 addressed to the masquers and the great cardinal, and 
 the sense and force are completely destroyed by Kemble's 
 alteration, which runs as follows : — 
 
 " You must give us leave, 
 To keep these ladies from their rest, awhile. 
 I have another measure yet to lead 'em, 
 Which, being ended, they shall all go sleep. 
 Then this, which does a happy vision teem, 
 May be again repeated in a dream." 

 
 TRAGEDIES. 
 
 Macbeth, 51 Editions. January 7th, 1666-7, good 
 gossip Pepy's thus writes : " To the Duke's House, and 
 saw " Macbeth ; " which though I saw it lately, yet 
 appears a most excellent play in all respects, but 
 especially in divertisement, though it be a deep tra- 
 gedy ; which is a strange perfection in a tragedy, it 
 being most proper here and suitable."* In 1672 Sir 
 Wm. Davenant so altered, amended and added to this 
 tragedy, that he suceeded in converting it into an opera, 
 which he produced at the Duke's Theatre, and it met 
 with very great success. Five editions of this version, 
 containing all the additions and so-called improvements, 
 were published: one in 1673, two in 1674,! one in 1695, 
 
 •Diary, Vol. HE., p. 120. 
 
 + Thomas Duff et, who was "a milliner in the new Exchange" and author of " The 
 Mock Tempest," also wrote a burlesque called " The Empress of Morocco," in ridicule of 
 Elkanah Settle's tragedy of " The Emperor of Morocco." The piece La somewhat coarse, 
 was published in 1674, and in its curious epilogue, Duff et alludes to the manner in which 
 the tragedy of Macbeth had b&.n produced. "A new fanny, alter the old and most 
 surprising way of Macbeth) performed with new and costly machines, which were invented 
 and managed by the must ingenious operator, Mr. Henry Wright, P. <;. 2." It \*a~ 
 evidently a travestic, for Hecate and three witches pursue their course "according to the 
 famous mode of Macbeth, commence the most renowned and melodious sun" of John Dorj 
 being heard as it were in the air, sung in parts by spirits, to raise the expectation, and 
 charm the audience with thoughts sublime, and worthy of (lie heroick scene which 
 follows." This particular scene commences after those of Macbi th, for " thunder and 
 lightning " is discovered. Three witches fly over the pit riding upon besoms. Then Hecate 
 descends over the stage "in a glorious chariot adorned with pictures of hell and devi 
 made of a large wicker basket " Thee is also an allusion to the house in which M 
 was originally produced, for Hecate says. — " Bank-Side manikin thrice has mcuM."
 
 44 
 
 and one in 1710. In this improved version, Davenant 
 has omitted many of the finest speeches, and introduced 
 a considerable quantity of mere rubbish. The great 
 fault which pervades this version, is the wanton and 
 unnecessary changes which are made in the text, for 
 there is scarcely ten successive lines to be found, which 
 Davenant has not so mutilated, that in most instances he 
 has destroyed the grandeur and meaning of the original 
 text. The judgment of Steevens upon this alteration, 
 though severe, is truly just, for there cannot be much 
 doubt that " almost every original beauty is either 
 awkwardly disguised, or arbitrarily omitted " by 
 Davenant. The speeches of Rosse are given to other 
 characters, — the part of Seyton is considerably enlarged, 
 so is that of Macduff and also his wife, who, when Lady 
 Macbeth enters for the first time, enters with her. In 
 the scene preceding the murder, the solemnity of the 
 occasion is destroyed by the alteration Davenant has 
 made in the couplet which is spoken by Macbeth when 
 he quits the stage to do the deed without a name : — 
 
 " Hear it not Duncan, it is a bell, 
 
 That rings my coronation and thy knell." 
 
 Malcolm and Macduff meet at " Birnam Wood " instead 
 of in " gracious England," and the ghost of Duncan 
 haunts Lady Macbeth, so working upon her fears that 
 she tries to persuade her husband to resign the crown. 
 The murder of Macduff s " wife and babies " is related 
 by Lennox instead of Rosse, Lady Macbeth's two last 
 speeches are omitted, and the scene with the doctor and 
 Macbeth is fearfully mangled. In the incantation scene 
 in the fourth act, a dance of furies is introduced to add 
 to its attractions. Lennox, instead of young Siward, 
 fights with Macbeth and is killed, but before dying he 
 most politely apologises to his "poor country" for
 
 doing so. In the fifth act, Davenant has added a good 
 deal of his own, though he only gives Macbeth one line, 
 as a dying speech. In 1731, it was altered by Mr. Tate 
 and published in Edinburgh, and in 1750, the tragedy 
 was published with all the original songs ; this version 
 running through two more editions, — one in 1755, and 
 one in 1768. In 1748, Garrick produced this tragedy, 
 pretending to omit the rubbish which had been added 
 by Davenant. This he did not wholly do ; the main 
 portions of the additions he left out, and then, to show 
 how thoroughly he understood Shakspere, he added a 
 contemptible dying speech to the part of Macbeth. 
 This was an opportunity, that this truly poetic adaptor 
 could not let slip by of showing his skill in the 
 expression of convulsive throes and dying agonies, 
 however, unsuited such acting might be to the occasion, 
 or to the intent of the author. In 1753, a Mr. Lee newly 
 adapted it for the stage at Edinburgh, and in 1773, 
 another edition of this version was published by Jenner. 
 In 1794, it was adapted and revised by J. P. Kemble, 
 two other editions of his revised version being published, 
 one in 1803 and one in 18 14. During the time the 
 Royal Circus, in St. George's Fields, afterwards the 
 Surrey Theatre, was under the management of Mr. 
 Elliston, he produced a version of Macbeth in verse on 
 September 23rd, 1809. The alteration is said to have 
 been executed by Mr. J. C. Cross, who had written 
 numerous dramatic pieces for the same house. There 
 were several new scenes introduced, and the murder of 
 Duncan was perpetrated in a bedchamber in the 
 presence of the audience. The fulness of comprehension 
 and thorough acquaintance of Mr. Cross with the 
 Shaksperean drama is evidenced in his rendering of the 
 scene containing the famous soliloquy : —
 
 to 
 
 " Is this iggt ' that I see before me ? 
 
 My brains are scattered in a whirlwind stormy." 
 
 I 'i avoid the law then existing relative to the production 
 of the legitimate drama, the house being a minor one, a 
 ballet d' action was also served up, and the whole was 
 preceded by a grand entree, composed in rhyme by Dr. 
 Busby, in which all manner of good things were mixed 
 together. The conclusion of the address refers to the 
 position the manager was placed in, owing to the 
 monopoly possessed by the two great houses. 
 
 "To prove we keep our duties full in view, 
 And what we must not say, resolve to do; 
 Convinc'd that you will deem our zeal sincere, 
 Since more by deeds than moras it will appear." 
 
 In 1847, on J une 1 7th, " Macbeth Travestie," a burlesque, 
 was produced and played on the day of the regatta at 
 Henley. It was written and published at Oxford, in 
 
 1847, and three other editions were published, — one in 
 
 1848, one in 1849, an d one in London in 1853. It was 
 afterwards produced at the Strand Theatre, January 
 10th, 1848, and reproduced with many alterations and 
 additions at the Olympic Theatre, April 25th, 1853. 
 In 1849, a phonetic edition of this tragedy was published. 
 In 1853, an edition, edited by Mr, Hastings Elwin, was 
 printed and published at Norwich. The avowed object 
 and intent of this edition being an attempt to restore the 
 original text. In 1856, this tragedy was altered, adapted 
 and produced as a grand equestrian spectacle at Astley's 
 Amphitheatre. In 1868, an edition was arranged for 
 reading by Mr. Rayne. In 1877, an edition of Macbeth, 
 according to the first folio was published. The object of 
 its editor, Mr. A. P. Paton, being to preserve Shakspere's 
 use of capital letters, for they constitute " the key to the 
 way in which he read his own works, and in which they
 
 17 
 
 ought to be read by others." The spelling is modernised, 
 and the edition is called the "Hamnet." In 1878, Air. 
 Paton published Hamlet; and in 1879, Cymbeline and 
 Timon of Athens were also published. 
 
 Troilus and Cressida, 14 Editions. In 1679, this 
 Tragedy was altered by John Dryden, and produced at 
 the Dorset Garden Theatre, under the title of " Troilus 
 and Cressida, a Truth proved too late." Two other 
 editions of this version were published, — one in 1695 and 
 one in 1735. Dryden, in the preface to his version of 
 the tragedy, says, " The original story was written by 
 Lollius, a Lombard, in Latin verse and translated by 
 Chaucer into English. Shakspere, in the apprenticeship 
 of his writing, modelled it into that play which is now 
 called by the name of Troilus and Cressida. "I," says 
 Dryden, " new modelled the plot, threw out many un- 
 necessary persons, improved those characters which 
 were begun and left unfinished, — as Hector, Troilus, 
 Pandarus and Thersites, and adding to that of Andro- 
 mache." This is remarkably cool and modest on the 
 part of Dryden, and it is only excelled by Langbaine's 
 opinion of Dryden's version, that "the last scene in the 
 third act is a master-piece." 
 
 Act 1 opens with the Grecian camp, being the 3rd 
 scene of Shakspere's tragedy. This scene is greatly 
 shortened, but the language is chiefly Shakspere's. 
 Scene 1 and 2 then follow without any very material 
 changes. 
 
 Act 2 opens with another revision, Priam, Hector 
 and others are discovered, and this scene is materially 
 altered. In the ensuing scenes between Pandarus and 
 Cressida and Pandarus and Troilus, not more than 
 twenty lines belong to Shakspere. The first part of the
 
 48 
 
 scene between Ulysses and Nestor is from Shakspere, 
 and the remainder belongs to Dryden. 
 
 Act 3. The alterations are very slight until the 
 concluding scene between Hector and Troilus, which is 
 wholly Dryden's. 
 
 Act 4. The arrangement of this act is altogether 
 different, for Dryden, to please the ladies, represents 
 Cressida as true to Troilus. Most of the language in 
 this act is the production of Dryden. 
 
 Act 5. This is chiefly distinguished by the absence 
 of the language of Shakspere, and the change in the 
 termination of the tragedy. Andromache prevails on 
 Hector not to go forth to fight, but Troilus carries him 
 off to battle. Troilus strikes down Diomed, whom 
 Cressida tries to save — this makes Troilus jealous ; then 
 Cressida, to prove her constancy, kills herself; Troilus 
 kills Diomed, and Achilles kills Troilus. 
 
 The part of the fierce prophetess, the wild Cassandra, 
 is entirely omitted by Dryden, who in the plenitude and 
 superiority of his poetic powers (?) has materially 
 weakened the character of " the hope of Troy," the 
 warlike Hector. 
 
 Timon of Athens, 14 Editions. In 1678, Thomas 
 Shadwell altered this Tragedy, and thought so highly 
 of his production, that in the dedication to George, Duke 
 of Buckingham, he modestly observes, that " this play 
 was originally Shakspere's, who never made," says he, 
 " more masterly strokes than in this ; yet I can truly 
 say, I have made it into a play." Shadwell so well 
 understood Shakspere, that he spoils the character of 
 Flavius, by making him desert his master, and he also 
 introduces some love passages between Timon, Evandra 
 and Melissa, two female characters new to the tragedy.
 
 Timon professes a regard for Evandra, but loves Melissa 
 so much, that he cannot live without her. Melissa 
 forsakes Timon in the hour of his adversity, while 
 Evandra remains faithful and endeavours to console 
 Timon. In the fifth act Timon and Evandra enter the 
 cave, — the former dies and the latter kills herself. The 
 play terminates with a speech by Alcibiades lamenting 
 their death. The incidents are thus considerably varied, 
 while the alterations effected in the language are in the 
 highest degree detrimental to the tragedy. The 
 character of Flavius, the steward of Timon, is entirely 
 reversed by Shadwell, who so thoroughly comprehends 
 the intent of Shakspere, that he makes him unfaithful to 
 his master and thus one of the great charms of the 
 tragedy is destroyed. This alteration when produced at 
 Dorset Garden Theatre did not, however, succeed, for 
 its non-success is evidently alluded to in the prologue to 
 the Jew of Venice : 
 
 " How was the scene forlorn, and how despis'd, 
 When Timon, without music, moraliz'd ? 
 Shakspere's sublime in vain entie'd the throng, 
 Without the charm of Purcell's syren song." 
 
 Some years afterwards this altered version was re- 
 vived, and it met with much success, remaining on the 
 acting list for many years. Three other editions of 
 Shadwell's version were published : one in 1688, one in 
 1703, and the other without any date. The notions that 
 prevailed at this period of the purpose, nature and 
 construction of plays, seem to have been very peculiar 
 ones. They were evidently derived from some French 
 definition, and they appear to have held sway for some 
 years. Shakspere was held to be a wild untutored 
 genius, given to irregularities, and his dramas were 
 looked upon as nondescript productions, whi< h requi
 
 50 
 
 the services of such skilful playwrights as Shaclvvell and 
 others to lick into shape. In 1768, James Love published 
 an alteration of this tragedy, based upon Shakspere and 
 Shadwell. This version is a better one than that of 
 Shadwell's, for Love has not indulged in so much 
 alteration of the scenes and the language of Shakspere 
 as Shadwell did. He is guilty of many omissions of 
 Shakspere's text, but he most decidedly improves the 
 language of Shadwell, and had he only left out the lines 
 written by that improver and inserted more of Shakspere, 
 he would have considerably improved his version. In 
 the same year the tragedy was altered and revised by 
 Dance. In 1771, it was altered by Richard Cumberland 
 and produced at Drury Lane Theatre, on December 4th. 
 In this alteration, Cumberland changes, clips and 
 contorts many of the sentences, omits several of the 
 scenes and adds considerably to the language of the 
 tragedy, for the last act, with the exception of about two 
 pages, being entirely written by him. This alteration, 
 like that of Shadwell's, is marked by the same fault, 
 viz., the leaving out the language and scenes of Shaks- 
 pere, and the result accomplished is the spoliation of 
 the qualities of the play. In 1786, a new alteration of 
 Shakspere and Shadwell was produced by Mr. Hull, and 
 played at Covent Garden Theatre. In 1816, the tragedy 
 was again altered and adapted for representation by the 
 Hon. G. Lamb. 
 
 Coriolanus, 24 Editions. In 1682, Nahum Tate 
 altered this Tragedy and produced it at the Theatre 
 Royal, under the title of" The Ingratitude of a Common- 
 wealth, or the Fall of Caius Marius." This alteration 
 is composed of omissions, changes of incidents and 
 language, and of many additions, so that the beauty of
 
 51 
 
 the original play is entirely marred. The action of the 
 tragedy is much altered, and tasteless insipidity dis- 
 places the splendid language of Shakspere. New 
 characters are also introduced, among whom occurs 
 Nigridius, a villain discharged by Coriolanus, and who 
 enters the service of Aufidius, becoming one of the chief 
 instruments in producing the results of the tragedy. 
 The fifth act is mainly composed of Tate's additions. 
 Volumnia, Valeria and others enter at Rome, — Volum- 
 nia, hearing that Nigridius has formed a plot against 
 the life of her son, sets off for Corioles with Virgilia and 
 young Martius. Aufidius and Nigridius enter — then 
 follows the scene with Coriolanus and the Volscians — 
 this is partly from Shakspere. Coriolanus fights with 
 Aufidius and his party — they are both mortally wounded 
 — Aufidius threatens to ravish Virgilia in her husband's 
 presence — she is brought in wounded — Aufidius and 
 Virgilia die — Nigridius boasts that he has racked young 
 Martius — Coriolanus asks : — 
 
 " Well, Cerberus, how then did'st thou dispose him ? 
 Did' st eat him ? 
 
 Nigridius answers, that he threw him with his limbs all 
 broken, though still alive, into the arms of Volumnia, 
 who then enters mad with young Martius — she kills 
 Nigridius and runs off — Martius dies, and Coriolanus 
 concludes the play with a dying speech. The characters 
 of Valeria and Volumnia are entirely changed, the 
 former being quite a lack-a-daisical part, and the 
 language given to the latter in her mad scene is utterly 
 contemptible. In 17 19, it was altered by John Dennis, 
 and produced at Drury Lane Theatre, as " The Invader 
 of his Country, or the Fatal Resentment." A second 
 edition of this version was published in 1721. About
 
 52 
 
 half the original play has been retained, in which 
 
 Dennis has made many alterations in the lines ; the 
 
 remainder of the play is made up of his additions, which 
 
 are of the feeblest character. Dennis has also introduced 
 
 much more low comedy in his version than the original 
 
 tragedy contains, though he has left out the humourous 
 
 speeches of Menenius. Each act is terribly mutilated, 
 
 the scenes being changed and the beauty of the language 
 
 spoilt by the alterations. The 3rd act concludes with a 
 
 parting scene between Coriolanus and Virgilia : 
 
 Cor. " Adieu ! 
 
 In quest of great revenge thy lover flies. 
 Virg. Support me, virgins, for Virgilia dies." 
 
 Act 4 commences with Coriolanus at Antium, the 
 three first scenes being omitted and much low comedy 
 is introduced. Aufidius and the Volscians are discover- 
 ed, and Coriolanus is brought in. The act finishes with 
 the citizens in Rome driving off their Tribunes with the 
 intention of hurling them from the Tarpeian rock. 
 
 Act 5 commences with Aufidius and his officers — 
 then Coriolanus, Volumnia and other ladies enter — 
 Aufidius goes out — Volumnia threatens to kill herself, 
 but does not ; Aufidius re-enters, fights with Coriolanus 
 and gets slain ; the Volscians rush on and kill 
 Coriolanus, and Cominius finishes the piece. 
 
 This alteration by Dennis is one among the worst 
 ever perpetrated, for though a professed critic in matters 
 dramatic, the result of his labours in this particular 
 instance fully demonstrates his non-understanding of 
 the poet's intent and power of characterisation, and his 
 non-efficiency for the position he had assumed. Cibber 
 and Tate had been guilty of gross mutilation, and they 
 certainly have never surpassed the mangling of the 
 work of Shakspere as Dennis has done in this disrepu-
 
 53 
 
 table version. In 1 748, " Coriolanus," a tragedy, found. ■< 1 
 on Shakspere's, was published, and it was acted at 
 Covent Garden Theatre in 1749. It was the work of 
 James Thomson, the author of "The Seasons," and 
 " The Castle of Indolence," and he has in no way 
 improved upon the original play. Thomson's production 
 is cold and declamatory when compared with Shakspere, 
 and he has also grossly misrepresented the principal 
 character. This is a result that was to be expected, for 
 the poetic powers of Thomson did not possess a dramatic 
 tendency. In 1750, a mosaic tragedy, composed of 
 Shakspere and Thomson was produced by Mr. Thomas 
 Sheridan, " in order to adapt it better to the taste of the 
 audience of the city of Dublin." This alteration was 
 published anonymously, and was called " Coriolanus, or 
 the Roman Matron," and was afterwards produced at 
 Covent Garden Theatre in December, 1754, and in 
 March, 1758. In 1789,7. P. Kemble produced "Corio- 
 lanus," as altered from Sheridan and Thomson, and in 
 1 80 1, he introduced "Coriolanus," with additions by 
 Thomson.* In 1806, it was again revised by Kemble, 
 and three more editions were published, — one in 181 1, 
 one in 181 2, and one in 18 14. In 1820, the tragedy 
 underwent another alteration at the hands of R. W. 
 Elliston. 
 
 Julius CiESAR, 43 Editions. In 1677, this tragedy 
 was altered and revised by Sir Charles Sedley, a second 
 edition of this alteration being published in 1796. In 
 
 *"The revival of Coriolanus was a mixture of Thomson and Shakspere's tratrr.li. -. 
 •with five of the best scenes in the latter omitted, and what was judicious in the farm, r. 
 marred. I cannot help thinking that Kemble had only that sort of regard for ShaJ 
 which people have for the picturesque, who tear away ivy from a church-tower in onbr t.> 
 whitewash its walls."— Dorax's Their Majesty's Servants, vol. ii., p 876.
 
 54 
 
 1684, Julius Caesar was revived at the Theatre Royal, 
 
 and some slight alterations were made in the text, and 
 
 also some transpositions of parts were effected. Mar- 
 
 cellus was given to Casca, and the part of Cicero given 
 
 to Trebonius. An edition of this version was published 
 
 the same year of its production. In 1722, it was altered 
 
 by John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, who divided it 
 
 into two plays : one called " The Death of Marcus 
 
 Brutus," and the other "Julius Caesar." Julius Caesar 
 
 is based upon the first three acts of Shakspere's tragedy, 
 
 and considerable additions and also alterations are 
 
 made, none of which have a tendency to add to the 
 
 worth and greatness of the original, but, on the other 
 
 hand, detract most materially therefrom. " The Death 
 
 of Marcus Brutus " is composed of the last two acts of 
 
 Shakspere's Julius Caesar, with additional characters 
 
 introduced to make up the necessary five acts. Junia 
 
 the wife of Cassius, Dolabella, Varius, are among the 
 
 new characters added to the dramatis personae. To each 
 
 of these plays was added a prologue, and the choruses 
 
 were written after the manner of the ancients. In these 
 
 two plays the author endeavours to preserve the unities 
 
 of time, place and action. He makes the play of Julius 
 
 Caesar to begin " the day before Caesar's death, and to 
 
 end an hour after it." In Marcus Brutus "the play 
 
 begins the day before the battle of Phillippi, and ends 
 
 with it." The noble adaptor regrets that he cannot 
 
 preserve the unity of place owing to the scene changing 
 
 from Athens to Phillippi, and confesses he 
 
 " Commits one crime that needs an act of grace, 
 And breaks the law of unity of place." 
 
 His excessive politeness renders him most anxious 
 to polish the " rude lines " and " wood-notes wild " of 
 the gentle Shakspere, and this he fails not to do, though
 
 53 
 
 in doing it, he does not fail to destroy the quality and 
 vigour of the original text. The Shaksperean lines, 
 
 " The evil that men do lives after them ; 
 The good is oft interred with their bones ; " 
 
 he conceives to be wanting in finish, and they are also 
 
 strongly marked by coarseness and vulgarity. This he 
 
 wishes to avoid and substitutes for the latter line his 
 
 polished one of " The good is often buried in their 
 
 graves." There is not a scene in the whole play that he 
 
 does not in some way or other presume to alter, yet he 
 
 excepts from improvement the oration of Antony, which 
 
 he gives as Shakspere wrote it. Two of the choruses 
 
 for one of these plays was written by the poet, Pope. 
 
 In 1729, these two pieces were intended to be played 
 
 together, for which purpose the choruses were all set to 
 
 music by the great Bononcini. Owing to a scarcity of 
 
 English voices and to the exorbitant demands of the 
 
 Italian singers, this design was laid aside. Two other 
 
 editions of this ducal version were published, — one in 
 
 1723, and the other without date. In 1765, the following 
 
 ridiculous lines were first added to the fourth act of this 
 
 play. They were spoken by Walker in the character of 
 
 Brutus, and were first printed in Bell's edition of " Julius 
 
 Caesar," published in 1773. 
 
 " Sure they have raised some devil to their aid, 
 And think to frighten Brutus with a shade ; 
 But ere the night closes this fatal day, 
 I'll send more ghosts this visit to repay." 
 
 In 181 1, J. P. Kemble adapted this tragedy for the 
 stage, and three editions of his adaptation were pub- 
 lished, one in 1 8 1 1 , one in 1812 and one in 1 8 1 4. 
 
 Antony and Cleopatra, 18 Editions. In 1677, a 
 tragedy under this title was produced at the Dorset
 
 56 
 
 Garden Theatre. It was written in rhyme by Sir 
 Charles Sedley, who has not borrowed anything from 
 Shakspere. In 1678, John Dryden produced a tragedy 
 " All for Love, or The World Well Lost." This is not 
 an alteration of Shakspere, but merely an imitation of 
 his style based upon the incidents of Antony and the 
 Egyptian Queen. In 1758, Capel and Garrick adapted 
 this tragedy for the stage by abridgment and transposi- 
 tions. This joint alteration did not answer Garrick's 
 expectations when it was acted at Drury Lane Theatre, 
 on January 3rd, 1759, for though it was produced with 
 the advantages of new scenes, dresses and decorations, 
 it was a failure. It was played but six nights, although 
 its cast was strongly aided by the valuable services of the 
 famous Mrs. Yates, in the part of Cleopatra. The failure 
 of this version was partly owing to the manner in which 
 the tragedy had been abridged, and partly to Garrick's 
 person not being important enough for the part of the 
 "Herculean Roman," Antony. In 1778, H. Brooke 
 published Antony and Cleopatra, one-half thereof being 
 derived from Shakspere, the remaining half being his 
 own. Three new characters are added in this version, 
 viz., two children of Antony and Cleopatra and her 
 brother, Ptolemy. The characters of Caesar, Octavia, 
 and others are omitted. In 1813, on November 15th, 
 " Antony and Cleopatra," was produced at Covent 
 Garden Theatre. This version is composed of Shak- 
 spere and Dryden and it is attributed to J. P. Kemble, 
 though his name does not appear upon the title-page. 
 In this version, parts of the scenes by Shakspere are 
 interwoven with those by Dryden, scenes are also 
 transposed from one act to another, and a general com- 
 mingling of the two authors' words not unfrequently 
 takes place. The incidents are changed at pleasure,
 
 and omissions form the rule and not the exception. The 
 character of the syren queen, " the old serpent of the 
 Nile," is materially injured, for her speeches are so 
 frequently dipt. 
 
 Act i. The alterations in this act are not very 
 numerous nor of much importance. The language does 
 not differ greatly from the original text, though as usual 
 the changes are for the worse. 
 
 Act 2 begins with Shakspere's second scene — the 
 description of Cleopatra on the Cydnus is most injudi- 
 ciously omitted ; then follows the fifth scene of Cleopatra 
 and her attendants ; next a scene between Antony and 
 Octavia at Athens, from Shakspere's third act ; then 
 Cleopatra at Alexandria. The first part of this scene is 
 from Shakspere, but when Antony enters, the conclusion 
 of the act is from Dryden. 
 
 Act 3. The sixth scene of Shakspere furnishes the 
 opening scene of this act ; then follows the seventh 
 scene — the battle of Actium is fought in sight of the 
 audience, and the act terminates as in Shakspere with 
 but slight alterations. 
 
 Act 4 is mainly the production of Dryden, none of 
 whose scenes can in any way be compared with those of 
 Shakspere, nor do they possess the truthfulness of cha- 
 racterisation nor the force of language which marks the 
 work of the elder bard. 
 
 Act 5. This act is a mosaic, about equally composed 
 of Shakspere and Dryden, Vcntidius destroys himself, 
 and after Antony has fallen upon his sword, the tragedy 
 is continued from Shakspere, though the omissions are 
 very numerous, and it concludes with two short scenes 
 partly from Shakspere, and with a grand funeral proces- 
 sion. 
 
 In 183,3, on November 21st, another version composed
 
 58 
 
 of Shakspere and Dryden was produced at Drury Lane 
 Theatre. Mr. Macready was Antony ; Miss Phillips, 
 Cleopatra; and Mr. Cooper, Enobarbus. In 1849, tn i s 
 tragedy was produced at the Sadler's Wells Theatre, by 
 Mr. S. Phelps, who enacted the part of Antony, and the 
 text of Shakspere was scrupulously adhered to. No 
 transpositions of speeches from one character to another, 
 thus destroying the characterisation of the author, was 
 indulged in, but each spake that which Shakspere 
 himself had written. The tragedy was placed upon the 
 stage with much splendour and magnificence, yet the 
 spectacular effect was made entirely subservient to the 
 illustrating of the poet's lines. No additions of Dryden 
 were inserted, and for the first time since the reign 
 of Charles I., the English playgoer had an oppor- 
 tunity of seeing Antony and Cleopatra acted from 
 the original text. Miss Glyn was the Cleopatra; Mr. 
 H. Marston, Sextus Pompey ; and Mr. C. Bennett, 
 Enobarbus. In March, 1855, Antony and Cleopatra 
 was produced at the Standard Theatre with great 
 success. Mr. H. Marston and Miss Glyn personating 
 the title role. In September, 1866, Mr. Charles Calvert 
 arranged this tragedy for representation in four acts, 
 and it was produced at the Manchester Theatre Royal. 
 Mr. Calvert was Antony; Mrs. Calvert, Cleopatra; and 
 Mr. J. Lunt, Enobarbus. In May, 1867, it was produced 
 at the Princess Theatre, and ran for one month. Mr. 
 H. Loraine was Antony ; Miss Glyn, Cleopatra. On 
 Saturday, September 21st, 1873, aversion of Antony and 
 Cleopatra was produced at Drury Lane Theatre, by Mr. 
 Chatterton. This version was adapted by Mr. Andrew 
 Halliday, who reduced the tragedy to four acts and 
 compressed the thirty-three scenes of the original play 
 into twelve. He also sought to preserve the unities of
 
 59 
 
 time and place as closely as possible, for the first and 
 second acts take place in Rome, while the third and 
 fourth are confined to Egypt. The early part of this 
 version is chiefly devoted to scenic and bajlet effects, so 
 much so, that to a large quantity of the painter, 
 upholsterer and ballet-master's art, there is but little of 
 Shakspere to leaven the mass. The tragedy as written 
 by Shakspere contains 3014 lines, but this version 
 contains only 1396 Shaksperean lines. Mr. Hallid;iy 
 has not made many alterations in the language of 
 Shakspere, but he has been guilty of much omission, 
 and what is still worse, the transposing of scenes and 
 also of speeches from one character to another. He has 
 not done this with the characters of Antony and Cleopa- 
 tra, but with some of the minor characters, to the injury 
 of the play. That a little Shakspere is better than none 
 at all, is but a poor excuse or apology for an English 
 dramatist, or adaptor, to seize upon one of the grand 
 works of the great dramatist, as a convenient peg to 
 hang a display of dumb show and spectacle, that 
 belongeth more to the world of panorama than it does 
 to the dramatic world. It is but fair to say, that Mr. 
 Halliday is not very often heard in the representation of 
 this adaptation, but he is very frequently seen to the 
 detriment of the action of the tragedy as it was conceived 
 and executed by its original author. However, in these 
 days of realistic sensations and upholstery displays, we 
 must be content with the excised adaptations which the 
 new gods of the theatrical world have given us. 
 
 Cymbeline, 30 Editions. This tragedy has under- 
 gone frequent alterations,— Mr. Thomas D'Urfey "perpe- 
 trating one in 1682, his version being produced at the 
 Dorset Garden Theatre, and it was called "The Injun, 1
 
 Princess, or The Fatal Wager." The changes in the 
 plot and in the language by D'Urfey are of the most 
 material character, and like most other of the alterations 
 of Shakspere,. they are really vile. Some of the names 
 of the characters are changed; Eugenia being substituted 
 for Imogen ; Shatillon, a Frenchman, for Iachimo ; Ursa- 
 ces for Posthumus ; the part of Guiderius is given to 
 Arviragus, and the other young prince is called Palladour. 
 Pisanio is converted into an elderly part and made to be 
 the father of Clarina, an attendant of the young princess. 
 
 Act i. Scene i, is the parting of Ursaces and 
 Eugenia; only a few lines of Shakspere are spoken. 
 In scene 2, which lies in France and is the scene in 
 which Ursaces and Shatillon lay the wager, the 
 language is mostly Shakspere's. 
 
 Act 2, scene 1. But little of Shakspere is spoken ; in 
 scene 2, which is between Shatillon and the queen, the 
 language is about one-half by Shakspere. The bed 
 scene of Eugenia, in which Shatillon leaves chest, is 
 not much varied. Cloten enters with the musicians, and 
 Eugenia speaks some Shaksperean lines about the loss 
 of her bracelet. 
 
 Act 3, scene 1. Shatillon produces the bracelet, and 
 convinces Ursaces of his wife's infidelity ; the language 
 is chiefly from Shakspere. Scene 2, the cave scene, 
 is partly from Shakspere. Bellarius enters — then Pisa- 
 nio enters with Eugenia in man's clothes ; though he 
 believes in her guilt, he spares her, and gives her the 
 phial from the queen. Nearly the whole of this scene is 
 by D'Urfey. 
 
 Act 4, scene 1. The queen, enraged at the escape of 
 Eugenia, orders Cloten's friend, Iachimo, to punish 
 Clarina for concealing the princess's flight. Scene 2, 
 Eugenia enters from the cave ; this is partly from
 
 01 
 
 Shakspere. Scene 3, Pisanio and Cloten, in the clothes 
 of Ursaces, enter — Iachimo drags in Clarina — Pisanio 
 fights with Iachimo, kills him and is himself wounded — 
 Clarina runs off — Cloten puts out the eyes of Pisanio. 
 The next scene is mainly from Shakspere, Eugenia being 
 left on the stage as dead ; and the act finishes with a 
 new scene by D'Urfey between Bellarius, Arviragus and 
 Palladour. 
 
 Act 5. The major portion of this act is by D'Urfey. 
 In the battle Ursaces saves Cymbeline's life— kills 
 Shatillon, who previous to dying acknowledges Eu- 
 genia's innocence — Ursaces and Eugenia are reconciled, 
 and Cymbeline discovers his sons. 
 
 There is just enough left of Shakspere's language to 
 prevent this version from being wholly bad, for the ad- 
 ditions made by D'Urfey are of the weakest and flimsiest 
 character, not even being applicable to the period. One 
 example will suffice : Ursaces says, that if every woman 
 that forfeits honour should be deprived of life, 
 
 "The full-fed city-dame would sin in fear, 
 The divine's daughter slight the amourous cringe 
 Of her tall lover ; the close salacious Puritan 
 Forget th' appointment with her canting brother." 
 
 In 1755, it was altered by Charles Marsh, a second 
 edition of his version being published in 1762. In 1759, 
 it was altered by W. Hawkins, fellow of Pembroke 
 College, and Professor of Poetry in the University of 
 Oxford. In this alteration the author has taken all 
 manner of liberties with Shakspere, diverting the story, 
 changing the nature of the characters, and so altering 
 the language that he has robbed the tragedy of all its 
 beauties. Hawkins has sought to conform this tragedy 
 to classic rules, for he preserves the unities of time and 
 place, though, to effect this purpose, he altogether omits
 
 fi-2 
 
 the part of Iachimo. In 1761, it was altered by David 
 Garrick, whose alteration was a much better one than 
 that of D'Urfey's, from the simple reason that more of 
 Shakspere's language was retained. Two other editions 
 of Garrick's version were published, — one in 1762 and one 
 in 1767. In 1778 it was altered by Harry Brooke. In 
 this version Brooke has retained a great many of the 
 original speeches, but he has materially changed the 
 plot. The characters of the young princes, Guiderius and 
 Arviragus, are omitted, Cloten is made a serious part, 
 and the incidents of the tragedy are also much changed. 
 The character of Posthumus Leonatus is much enlarged, 
 though it is not by any means improved. Bellarius 
 when young, had privately married Adelaide, the sister 
 of Cymbeline, who being with child while her husband 
 was on an embassy to the Romans, rather than acknow- 
 ledge her marriage, which she thinks might prove 
 injurious to her husband, is sentenced to be burnt for 
 her unchastity at the altar of Andate. This fate, she 
 however avoids — Bellarius turns hermit, kills Cloten, 
 assists Cymbeline against the Romans, and ultimately 
 proves to be the father of Leonatus, for he discovers in 
 the priestess of the temple, his wife Adelaide. In 1795, 
 it was altered by Ambrose Eccles. In 1800, it was 
 altered and revised by J. P. Kemble, two other editions 
 of his versions being published, — one in 18 10, and one 
 in 1815. In 1876, an expurgated edition of this tragedy, 
 adapted for the purpose of being read aloud, was 
 published. Its editor was Mr. H. Cundell, and it forms 
 a portion of the edition of- Shakspere's works, known as 
 " The Boudoir Shakspere." 
 
 Titus Andronicus, 8 Editions. The first edition of 
 this play is said by Langbaine, who appears to have
 
 63 
 
 seen it, to have been printed in 1594, and it was certainly 
 entered at Stationers' Hall on February 6th in that year, 
 under the title of "A booke, entitled 'A Noble Historic 
 of Titus Andronicus.' " No copy is now known to exist. 
 In 1678, this tragedy was altered by Edward Ravens- 
 croft,* and produced at the Theatre Royal, under the 
 title of " Titus Andronicus, or the Rape of Lavinia." It 
 was first printed and published in 1687. In this altera- 
 tion Ravenscroft has been guilty of many omissions, 
 transpositions and additions, the latter being truly bad, 
 for they pervert the meaning, destroy the sense, are 
 wanting in beauty, in fulness of thought, and are of the 
 weak, weakest. Many of these additions are quoted by 
 Steevens, who, in his criticisms thereon, says, " in order 
 that justice and cookery may go hand in hand, Aaron is 
 at once racked and roasted upon the stage." Not 
 content with thus transgressing, Ravenscroft instead of 
 lessening the horrors of the play, has added to them, 
 for he makes Tamora kill her own child, and causes 
 the Moor Aaron thus to remark upon the deed: — 
 
 "She has outdone me, even in mine own art, 
 Outdone me in murder, killed her own child ! 
 Give it me — I'll eat it !" 
 
 Pericles, 13 Editions. This tragedy when it was 
 originally produced was very successful. This is 
 evidenced by the prologue to " The Hog hath lost his 
 Pearl," produced in 161 3 and written by Robert 
 Tailor, — 
 
 " And, if it prove so happy as to please, 
 We'll say 'tis fortunate, like Pericles." t 
 
 * Ravenscroft was also author of a comedy called " The English Lawyer," produced at 
 the Theatre Royal, in 1678. This comedy was founded on the Latin play of " Ignoramus," 
 written by Ruggle, of Clare College, Cambridge, and was enacted by the ftudentsof Trinity 
 College, in the hall of that Foundation, before King James I., in March L614 
 
 tBetterton when young was famed for hi- acting i.i tin' part of lVriclrs. .V .n hi^-
 
 64 
 
 In 1738, was produced at Covent Garden Theatre, 
 " Mariana," a play in three acts, by George Lillo. This 
 is an alteration of Shakspere's play, in which Lillo omits 
 the first three acts, starting with the fourth. He 
 changes Dionyza to her daughter Philoten, and Leonine 
 from a servant into a young lord, who is ultimately 
 poisoned by Philoten, whom he stabs. The play con- 
 cludes in the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, where 
 Pericles discovers his daughter, Mariana. The ad- 
 ditions made by Lillo will not bear comparison with 
 the work of Shakspere, for they are essentially weak, 
 and the changes which he has effected in the characters 
 and the language have not resulted in any improvement 
 of the original play. In October, 1854, this tragedy, as 
 written by Shakspere, was produced at the Sadler's 
 Wells Theatre. This is not a great acting play, yet it 
 was very successful. The scenic effect was marked by 
 grace and grandeur, and such points as fell within the 
 actor's part, were seized on and rendered with true 
 artistic power. Mr. Phelps was Pericles, and Miss 
 Heraud, Marina. 
 
 King Lear, 54 Editions. In 1681, "The History of 
 King Lear " was revised, altered and improved by 
 Nahum Tate, and produced at Dorset Garden Theatre : 
 nine editions of this version have been published — one 
 without date, one in 1699, 1712, 1745, 1756, 1759, 1760, 
 1767 and 1771. In this alteration, Tate,* in his wisdom 
 and knowledge of Shakspere, struck out the part of the 
 
 to Downes in his " Boscius Anglicanus," p. 26, he was "highly applauded" for his per- 
 formance of Pericles. 
 
 •Tate's alteration was condemned by Addison, whose judgment, is, however, 
 impugned by Davies, who observes "that it cannot be implicity relied on," for "this 
 excellent author has taken the melancholy side of the question, and is, in my opinion, too 
 great an advocate for the poisoned bowl and bloody dagger." — Dramatic Miscellanies, 
 vol. ii., p. 26.'5.
 
 faithful fool, converted Edgar and Cordelia into a pair 
 of silly lovers, and changed the termination into one of 
 comedy, by presenting Lear and his daugliter alive and 
 merry at the fall of the curtain. In the preface to his 
 edition of the tragedy, Tate thus modestly speaks of his 
 own version : — " It was my good fortune to light on one 
 expedient, to rectify what was wanting in the regularity 
 and probability of the tale, which was to run through 
 the whole, a love betwixt Edgar and Cordelia, that never 
 changed word with each other in the original. This 
 renders Cordelia's indifference and her father's passion 
 in the first scene probable. It likewise gives counte- 
 nance to Edgar's disguise, making that a generous 
 design that was before a poor shift to save his life." 
 The quality of the verse is shown in the vapid common 
 place utterances which occur in the scenes between 
 Edgar and Cordelia. In the first act, when the fair 
 princess is about to be consigned to the duke of " watery 
 Burgundy," Edgar exclaims, — 
 
 " Cordelia, royal fair, turn yet once more, 
 And ere successful Burgundy receive 
 The treasure of thy beauties from the king ; 
 Cast back one pitying look on wretched Edgar ! 
 Cord. Alas ! what would the wretched Edgar with 
 The more unfortunate Cordelia ? 
 Who in obedience to her father's will, 
 Flies from her Edgar's arms to Burgundy." [Exit. 
 
 In 1767, this tragedy was altered and revised by George 
 Colman for Covent Garden Theatre, and a second 
 edition of his version was published in 177 1. This 
 alteration by Colman is an improvement upon that of 
 Tate's, for in the first four acts he has retained more of 
 Shakspere's language than Tate did, though in the last 
 act Colman fails not to mangle Shakspere. Colman 
 leaves out the character of the fool, and makes the conclu- 
 
 H
 
 66 
 
 sion a happy, instead of a tragical one. In 1786, it was 
 altered by David Garrick, who made many omissions of 
 Tate's language and restored more of the original text. 
 The love scenes in Garrick's version are retained, and in 
 the fifth act he follows Tate's version instead of Shaks- 
 pere's play. The quarrel scene between Goneril and 
 Regan is omitted by Garrick in his version, though it 
 was preserved in that of Colman's. In 1793, it was 
 revised and altered by Ambrose Eccles. In 1800, Na- 
 hum Tate's version was newly altered and revised by 
 J. P. Kemble for Drury Lane Theatre, and in 1808, a 
 second edition of this version was published. When this 
 version was produced, it was called by Kemble, Shaks- 
 pere's Tragedy of King Lear, yet this was not the fact, 
 for it was simply Tate's alteration improved, there being 
 no less than five characters in the bill which cannot be 
 found in Lear as written by Shakspere. Kemble's 
 version is really a mosaic, composed of alterations made 
 by Tate, Garrick and Colman. Tate, however, is the 
 improver that Kemble follows most and whose version 
 he most relies on. 
 
 Act 1. This does not commence as Shakspere wrote 
 it, but as Tate altered it. Throughout the act Kemble 
 follows Tate very closely, restoring some few lines that 
 Garrick had already restored. Oswald receives special 
 instructions to enter and to make his exit, singing tol de 
 rol, tol de rol, &c. 
 
 Act 2. Kemble still proceeds with Tate, retaining 
 the mentioning of the masque; he then follows Garrick's 
 example in omitting the last speech but one, which Tate 
 had made Lear speak. 
 
 Act 3. In this act Kemble accepts some of Tate's 
 worst additions, though none of them are good, the 
 whole being intrinsically bad. When Kent and Lear
 
 G7 
 
 are gone into the hovel, Tate makes the bastard, 
 Edmund, enter and speak a soliloquy, and then receive 
 two letters from two servants. This contemptible scene 
 was rejected by Garrick, but restored by Kemble. 
 
 Act 4. Kemble begins with the last scene of Tate's 
 third act, omitting the soliloquy which Tate had given to 
 Gloucester. He follows Colman's example and omits 
 Gloucester's fall, and he also omits the essential part of 
 Oswald's dying speech, which Garrick had very properly 
 restored. 
 
 Act 5. Kemble does not in this act, materially 
 differ from the three improvers, Tate, Garrick and 
 Colman, though he does differ most materially from 
 Shakspere. The scene in which Edgar and Edmund 
 fight had been shamefully mutilated by his predecessors, 
 yet he has contrived to make it worse, for he has 
 restored some thirty wretched lines written by Tate, and 
 these lines had been rejected by Garrick and Colman. 
 Kemble's alteration is considerably worse than Garrick's, 
 and it decidedly establishes the fact of his want of 
 power to understand and grapple with the productions 
 of Shakspere. He may have been a critic among actors, 
 but he never possessed sufficient critical discernment to 
 be more than a poor pretender among critics. 
 
 On February 10th, 1823, this tragedy was played at 
 Drury Lane Theatre, the fifth act as originally written 
 by Shakspere being restored. Elliston, who was then 
 lessee of the theatre, is said to have effected this 
 restoration at the request of several members of the 
 literary world, and it certainly redounds to his credit to 
 have done so. The character of Lear was sustained by 
 Edmund Kean, and Cordelia by Mrs. W. West. This re- 
 vived version was played several other nights during this 
 season. On January 26, 1824, King Lear was played at
 
 68 
 
 Covent Garden Theatre, and though the tragedy was 
 announced in the bill of the day, as being written by 
 Shakspere, such was not the fact, the version being that 
 of Tate's, with the part of Aranthe retained. On 
 February 15th, 1827, the same version was played at 
 Drury Lane Theatre. It was also repeated at Covent 
 Garden Theatre for Young's benefit, on May 27th, 1827. 
 In 1828, it was played at the Haymarket Theatre on 
 July 2nd, — Lear, Mr. Gregory ; Cordelia, Miss F. H. 
 Kelly; Aranthe, Miss Curtis. In 1829, on March 30th, 
 it was again played at Drury Lane Theatre, — Lear, Mr. 
 Young ; Cordelia, Miss Phillips ; Aranthe, Miss Nicol. 
 The presentation of the versions of Tate and the other 
 improvers of this great tragedy received a fatal blow 
 when King Lear was produced at the Sadler's Wells 
 Theatre, by Mr. Samuel Phelps ; who with that reverent 
 love for the text of the great poet which he always 
 displayed in his Shaksperean revivals, placed this 
 tragedy on the stage as it was originally written. The 
 scenic appointments were thoroughly in keeping with 
 ideal and simple style of the fabulous period in which 
 the story is laid. The order and text of the scenes was 
 faithfully followed and the result fully justified Mr. Phelps' 
 bold adventure. It also demonstrated the fulness 
 of knowledge which Shakspere possessed of dramatic 
 effect, for the scenes which it had been the custom to 
 omit, because of their want of effect, were received with 
 marked attention and great applause. Their restoration 
 most triumphantly showed how necessary they were to 
 elucidate the story and develop the truth and purpose of 
 the tragedy. Lear, Mr. S. Phelps; Duke of Gloucester, 
 Mr. H. Barrett ; Kent, Mr. G. Bennett ; Edgar, Mr. H. 
 Marston ; Edmund, Mrs. F. Robinson ; Fool, Miss T. 
 Bassano ; Cordelia, Miss Cooper.
 
 G9 
 
 Romeo and Juliet, 57 Editions. This tragedy was 
 first altered by James Howard, who made it into a tragi- 
 comedy, preserving both Romeo and Juliet alive ; so 
 that, when the play was revived by Sir W. Davenant's 
 company, it was played alternately, tragical one day and 
 tragi-comical another, for several times together. In 
 1680 was produced at the Dorset Garden Theatre, "The 
 History and Fall of Caius Marius," by Thomas Otway. 
 About one-half of this tragedy is taken from Shakspere, 
 the incidents are somewhat changed, and occasionally 
 alterations and additions are made. In this version 
 Otway makes Lavinia wake in the tomb before young 
 Marius dies, and subsequent adaptors have followed this 
 alteration, which kept the stage for sixty-four years. 
 The changes in the characters, incidents and language 
 are very great. Mercutio's beautiful description of Queen 
 Mab is much marred, and the lines that are substituted 
 throughout the tragedy are sadly deficient in strength, 
 sweetness and characterisation. The tragedy weakly 
 terminates by a speech of Sulpitius, taken partly from 
 one of Mercutio's. 
 
 Sulfii. " No ; 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church 
 door; but 'tis deep enough; 'twill serve ; I am peppered, I warrant, 
 I warrant, for this world. A pox on madmen hereafter If I get a 
 monument, let this be my epitaph : — 
 
 Sulpitius lies here, that troublesome slave 
 
 That sent many honester men to the grave ; 
 
 And died like a fool, when he had lived like a knave." 
 
 Otway in his prologue admits that he has done Shakspere 
 
 wrong, that " he has rifled him of half a play," — and 
 
 that — 
 
 " Amidst his baser dross, you'll see it shine, 
 Most beautiful, amazing, and divine." 
 
 Three editions of this alteration were published, one
 
 70 
 
 in 1680, one in 1692, and one in 1703. In 1744, 
 Theophilus Cibber revised and altered this tragedy, 
 and this alteration is a combination of Otway and 
 Shakspere, for what additions are made by Cibber 
 are mainly derived from Caius Marius. Another feature 
 in this alteration is the breaking up of the rhymes into 
 blank verse, by the substitution of some few words for 
 synonymous ones of a different termination, and the 
 lopping off certain extraneous passages, which Cibber, 
 in his great wisdom and knowledge of the poet's works, 
 thought were trivial, prolix, or unnecessary to the 
 general purport of the plot. This alteration was not 
 printed till the year 1748. In 1746, it was altered and 
 revised by Thomas Sheridan, and produced at the 
 Dublin Theatre, where it ran nine nights to very full 
 houses. Among other alterations made by Sheridan, 
 was the transferring of Mercutio's great speech relative 
 to Queen Mab to the part of Romeo. In 1749, it was 
 altered by David Garrick, and produced on November 
 29th, at Drury Lane Theatre. In this version a grand 
 funeral procession was introduced by Garrick, the songs 
 and choruses making up the first scene of act 5. 
 Garrick in his advertisement to the first printed edition, 
 expressly states that "the chief design of the altera- 
 tions " of this tragedy, " was to clear the original as 
 much as possible from the jingle and quibble which were 
 always the objections to reviving it." This he has done 
 so well, that instead of improving upon the original text, 
 he most completely demonstrates how little he under- 
 stood the greatness of the poet he sought to improve, 
 and how weak, futile and spiritless are his additions. In 
 scene 5, act 5, he has been most busy with his additions 
 and alterations, so that when the scene was presented, 
 it was a mixture compounded of Shakspere, Otway and
 
 71 
 
 Garrick. Juliet is in the tomb and she awakes, 
 exclaiming : — 
 
 Jul. " Where am I ? defend me ! 
 
 Rom. She speaks, she lives : and we shall still be bless'd. 
 My kind propitious stars o'erpay me now 
 For all my sorrows past — rise, rise, my Juliet, 
 And from this cave of death, this house of horror, 
 Quick let me snatch thee to thy Romeo's arms, 
 There breathe a vital spirit in thy lips, 
 And call thee back to life and love. {takes her hand. 
 
 Jul. Bless me ! how cold it is ! who's there ? 
 
 Rom. Thy husband, 
 
 'Tis thy Romeo, Juliet ; rais'd from despair 
 
 To joys unutt'rable ! quit, quit this place, 
 
 And let us fly together. {brings her from tomb. 
 
 Jul. Why do you force me so — I'll ne'er consent — 
 
 My strength may fail me, but my will's unmov'd — 
 I'll not wed Paris, — Romeo is my husband." 
 
 Jul. " Oh, let me hear some voice 
 
 Besides my own in this drear vault of death. 
 
 Rom. She is my wife — our hearts are twin'd together — 
 Capulet forbear — Paris loose your hold — 
 Pull not my heart-strings thus — they crack — they break. 
 Oh, Juliet ! Juliet ! [dies. 
 
 On the entrance of the friar, Juliet becomes vehement, 
 says, that " Romeo is here still, and I will hold fast ; 
 they shall not tear him from me ; " threatens to stab 
 herself if the friar should go nearer to her, and ulti- 
 mately effects her purpose. Six other editions of this 
 version were printed. It was again altered and 
 published as " Capulet and Montague ; or The Tragical 
 Loves of Romeo and Juliet ; " but the author's name is 
 not known, nor was the edition dated. In 1 8 1 1 , Garrick's 
 version was revised by J. P. Kemble, and a second 
 edition was published in 1814. On Thursday, November 
 3rd, 1859, a burlesque upon this tragedy was produced 
 at the Strand Theatre. It was written by Mr. Andrew 
 Halliday, and a second edition was published in 1872.
 
 72 
 
 Hamlet,* 78 Editions. In 1 77 1, this tragedy was 
 altered by David Garrick for Drury Lane Theatre. 
 Garrick's version, however, was never printed, although 
 it kept the stage nine years. This tragedy had been 
 hitherto untouched by English adaptors and improvers, 
 and this literary shame was left to be accomplished by 
 the same Garrick who perpetrated the ridiculous farce of 
 the Shakspere Jubilee at Stratford-upon-Avon in the 
 year 1769. In this version the acts were divided 
 differently, for Garrick thought the first act too long, 
 and that it had a tendency to drag in its representation, 
 so he divided it into two, ending the first act with 
 Hamlet's determination to watch with Horatio and 
 Marcellus. He also materially changed the language 
 and situations of some of the other scenes, and those in 
 which the King and Laertes plot to destroy Hamlet 
 were entirely altered, and Laertes was made a much 
 more pleasing and interesting character. The voyage 
 to England and the execution of Rosencrantz and 
 Guilderstein are omitted. The slowness with which the 
 action advances, determined Garrick, in his treatment 
 of this tragedy, and he declared that he would not quit 
 the stage until he had " rescued this noble play from the 
 rubbish of the fifth act." To accomplish this, the two 
 gravediggers and Osric were entirely struck out, and 
 the account of Ophelia's death omitted. The Queen, 
 instead of being poisoned on the stage, was led from her 
 seat and described to be in a state of insanity, in con- 
 sequence of her strong sense of guilt. Hamlet and the 
 King fight a duel, in which the King is killed, and 
 
 •During the time of the suppression of the theatres by the Puritans, "The Grave- 
 makers, out of Hamlet," was one of the drolls then produced. It was first printed in 
 Kirkman's "The Wits," in 1G72, and it is the only one taken from Shakspere in the 
 collection.
 
 73 
 
 Hamlet and Laertes die of wounds mutually inflicted. 
 In 1780, Hamlet, as written by Shakspere, was played 
 at the Drury Lane Theatre on April 21st, for Bannister's 
 (junr.) benefit. Hamlet : Bannister, junr. After this 
 night, Garrick's version of this tragedy was played no 
 more. Wilkinson published an alteration of this tragedy 
 in his Wandering Patentee. In this version the acts 
 are divided in a similar manner to Garrick's, but he 
 alters the termination. The King fights with Hamlet 
 and is killed, the Queen rushes out shrieking, and Laertes 
 kills Hamlet. Speeches from other plays are also intro- 
 duced in this version, in particular, the fine scene of 
 Cardinal Beaufort's death, the King speaking the words 
 which belong to the Cardinal. In 1796, J. P. Kemble 
 altered and revised this tragedy, three other editions of 
 this version being published, — one in 1800, one in 1804, 
 and one in 18 15. In 1813, a travestie of this tragedy 
 was produced at Covent Garden Theatre, on June 17th. 
 It was written by Mr. John Poole, and the characters 
 were sustained as follows : — Hamlet, Matthews ; the 
 King, Blanchard ; Laertes, Simmons ; Horatio, Llamer- 
 ton ; the Ghost, Taylor ; the Queen, Mrs. Liston ; and 
 Ophelia, Mr. Liston. Six editions of this travestie have 
 been published, — one in 1810,1811, 1812, 1813, 1814 and 
 in 1817. At the Bath Theatre, on February 1st, 1827, a 
 most ridiculous innovation was perpetrated by the ma- 
 nager. Macready was playing Hamlet, and in the third 
 act, a kind of opera box was exhibited between the 
 wings to the audience, with a stool before it ; and while 
 Hamlet was speaking his soliloquy, Miss Taylor, as 
 Ophelia, knelt with her back to the prince, her arms 
 leaning on the side of the box, as if she was leaning on 
 the side of a pew in a church. This arrangement was 
 received with smiles and derisive laughter. In 1864, an 
 edition of this tragedy was published in the Welsh
 
 74 
 
 language, under the title of " Tywysog Denmarc." In 
 1867, a second travestie was published, under the title of 
 " A Slice of Hamlet," by the author of " The Duck's 
 Motto." An edition of this tragedy, reduced to three 
 acts, was published in or about the year 1870. In this 
 version the first scene of the first act is omitted, so also 
 is the first scene of the second act, and part of the second 
 scene. In the third act, many cuts are made by the 
 editor, Mr. Walter Gay, who, possessing a strong desire 
 for shortening the tragedy, judges he will, by such 
 means, confer a favour on " audiences and actors." 
 Many other scenes are cut out, and these, to use Mr. 
 Gay's own words, "are of no material importance to the 
 play. The gravedigger's scene seems to have been 
 written for the purpose of introducing some fun — also 
 to burlesque two lawyers of Shakspere's time — to bury 
 Ophelia — to get up a quarrel between Laertes and 
 Hamlet, and to allow some very fine remarks upon 
 Yorick, who is not otherwise connected with the plot. 
 The burial of Ophelia is uncalled for, as would be the 
 burial of Polonius and others who die in the play. 
 There is nothing so interesting in the quarrel that the 
 audience need see it. A slight allusion to it is sufficient, 
 consequently that scene can well be omitted." On 
 Saturday, January 25th, 1879, Poole's travestie of this 
 tragedy was revived at the Strand Theatre. 
 
 Othello,* 52 Editions. In 1670, this tragedy un- 
 derwent revision at the hands of John Dryden, of whose 
 version no less than seven other editions were published, 
 one in 1674, 1681, 1687, 1695,! 1697, 1701 and 1705. 
 
 * The opinion held by Pepy'n of Shakspere's Othello was not a very high one, for he thus 
 ■wrote, August 20th, K>f>6:— "To Deptford by water, reading ' Othello, Moor of Venice.' 
 which 1 ever heretofore esteemed a mighty good play, but having so lately read 'The 
 Advc-ntmvs of I'ivr llumis,' it M.-cm-i a mean thing." — Diary, vol. III., p. 11. 
 
 1 Hew Shakspere was understood at the latter part of the 17th century, and the
 
 An edition of another alteration was published without 
 date, under the title of "Jealousy exemplified in the 
 awful tragical and bloody History of the Lives and 
 untimely deaths of Othello and Desdemona." In 1804, 
 J. P. Kemble altered and adapted this tragedy for Drury 
 Lane Theatre, two other editions of this version being 
 published, — one in 1808, and one in 1814. In March, 
 1834, a travestie of this tragedy, written by Maurice G. 
 Dowling, was produced at the Liver Theatre, Liverpool, 
 and was acted for fifty nights. This travestie was 
 afterwards produced at the Strand Theatre, London, on 
 May 1 6th, 1836, and met with great success. Several 
 editions of this travestie were published by Duncombe 
 and Lacy. A previous travestie of this tragedy, written 
 by Colloy Molloy Westmacott, had been produced at the 
 Adelphi Theatre in 1834, and was condemned. In 1861, 
 Mr. C. Fechter, altered and adapted " Othello " for 
 representation at the Princess Theatre, and in several 
 of the scenes of his adaptation he has left out the sense, 
 and not unfrequently the poetry, of Shakspere. 
 
 estimation he was held in by some of the great critics of that time, is best evidenced by a 
 reference to " A Short View of Tragedy," published in 1693, and written by one Thomas 
 Rymer, of Gray's Inn. Speaking of Othello, he says, "never was any play fraught like this 
 with improbabilities" (p. 92). "The foundation of the play must be concluded to be 
 monstrous, and the constitution all over, to be — 
 
 "Most rank, 
 Foul disproportion, thoughts unnatural," 
 
 which instead of moving pity, or any passion tragical and reasonable, can produce nothing 
 but honor and aversion" (p. 14). "In the neighing of a horse, or the grotrUng of a 
 mastiff, there is a meaning, there is as lively expression, and, may I say, more humanity 
 than many times in the tragical flights of Shakespcar " (p. 96). " Instead of representing 
 men and manners, turning all morality, good sense and humanity into mockery and 
 derision" (p. 112). "There is in this play some burlcsk, some humour and ramble of 
 comical wit, some show and some mimickry to divert the spectators ; but the tragical part 
 is, plainly, none other than a bloody farce, without salt or savour " (p. 144). Of Julius 
 Cfesar, he says — "Csesar and Brutus were above his conversation." " The truth is, the 
 author's head was full of villainous, unnatural images, and history has only furnished 
 with great names" (p. 148). Of the scene with Brutu and Cassiufl he thus ezpn 
 opinion— "they are made to play a prize, a tryall of skill in huffing and swaggering, like 
 two drunken Hectors, for a twopenny reckoning " (p. 155). " Shakespear'a genius lay for 
 comedy and humour; in tragedy he appeal's quite out of his element ; his l.rainso ar 
 turn'd, he raves and rambles, without any coherence, any spark of reason) 01 my rale to 
 controul him, or set bounds to his phrenzy " (p, 1- r ><;
 
 RECENTLY PUBLISHED: 
 
 In crown 8vo., cloth, fift. viii., 272, Price Five Shillings, 
 
 SHAKSPEREAN FLY-LEAVES. 
 
 A NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION 
 
 By H. T. Hall. 
 
 LONDON : — J. RUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUARE ; 
 CAMRIDGE :— H. W. WALLIS, SIDNEY STREET. 
 
 SHAKSPEREAN STATISTICS. 
 
 A NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION. 
 
 By H. T. Hall. 
 
 CAMBIRDGE : — H. W. WALLIS, SIDNEY STREET. 
 Dc?ny, 8vo. Two Shillings. 
 
 IN PREPARATION, 
 
 A NEW AX D ENLARGED EDITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CAMBRIDGE DRAMATIC ALBUM. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY FOISTER AND JAGG.
 
 PR 
 
 ^^ Stockton, Col 
 
 THE LH 
 
 3 1205 03058 8360