united as one kingdom"; and the poet Samuel Daniel in some verses addressed to James, published in 1603, writes: 1 Now thou art All Great Britain, and no more; Malone makes no mention of the passage at Act IV. vi. 256, where the Folios read "upon the English party," the Quartos having "British "; and Mr. Aldis-Wright, in his Preface to the Clarendon Press edition of King Lear (1875), thus cleverly puts it: "It might be inferred that the line as it stands in the Folios was written before October 1604, and that it was corrected before the play was printed in 1608. But it is at least as likely that Shakespeare, writing not long after 1604, while the change was still fresh, and before the word 'British' had become familiar in men's mouths, may inadvertently have written 'English' and subsequently changed it into 'British.' In III. iv. 195 he had done the same with regard to the familiar line of the old ballad, 'I smell the blood of an Englishman,' and therefore it is, on the whole, probable that Lear was written after and not before the proclamation of James the First in 1604." Mr. W. Aldis-Wright, indeed, confidently advances arguments for a later date than Malone's. Referring to Gloucester's speech (at I. ii. 113-115), "these late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us," and to Edmund's (at I. ii. 151 and 156), "O! these eclipses do portend these divisions,” and “I am thinking, brother, of a prediction I read this other day, what 1 See a "Panegyricke Congratulatory," delivered to the King's most excellent Majesty at Burleigh-Harrington in Rutlandshire (Grosart's Daniel, 1885, vol. i. p. 143). should follow these eclipses," he suggests if we read these speeches, after studying a passage of predictions in a book called A Discoursive Probleme concerning Prophecies (1588), written by one John Harvey of King's Lynn, which he quotes, "it can scarcely be doubted that Shakespeare had in his mind the great eclipse [of 1605], and that King Lear was written while the recollection of it was still fresh"; and he thinks this all the more likely, as it had been preceded (a month before) by an eclipse of the moon. Now to this ingenious supposition, though it has been advanced by a most distinguished scholar for whose judgment I have the very highest respect, and one to whom every earnest student of Shakespeare must owe an eternal debt of gratitude, I cannot help taking some exception. Many critics have accepted it. Mr. Boas, for instance, in his able and interesting work, Shakespeare and his Predecessors (1896, p. 438), writes thus: "The reference in Act I. scene ii. to 'these late eclipses' must have been suggested by the great eclipse of the sun of October 1605, preceded by an eclipse of the moon in September." Now, though it is quite possible that the speeches in question may refer to the eclipses of the year 1605, and to the numerous predictions concerning them, we must not forget that this is all mere conjecture. I can well imagine that when Shakespeare wrote the above passages he may not have been thinking of any particular eclipse; whether he wrote a little before, or, as I believe, a little after 1605, he would have had in his own recollection, and he would have known that it was in the recollection of his audience that several remarkable eclipses had been of recent Occurrence. In the year 1598 there was on the 7th of March a large partial eclipse of the sun visible in England, preceded on the 21st February by a large partial eclipse of the moon, and followed on the 16th August by a total eclipse of the moon; while in the year 1601 an annular eclipse of the sun occurred on the 24th December, which was preceded by two lunar eclipses in that year-one, a small partial eclipse, on the evening of the 15th June; the other, a large partial eclipse, nearly total, on the evening of the 9th December. Mr. Wright, indeed, in the quotation already mentioned, which he has given from Harvey's Work, includes a passage containing prophecies of eclipses of the sun and moon which were to happen in these two just-mentioned years, as well as in 1605 (see the Clarendon Press edition, p. xvi). "Moreover, the like concourse of two Eclipses in one, and the same month, shall hereafter more evidently in shew, and more effectually in deed, appeere, Anno 1590. the 7. and 21. daies of July: and Anno 1598. the II. and 25. daies of February; and Anno 1601. the 29. day of Nouember and 14. of December." Now I ask, supposing that Shakespeare, when he wrote these passages, had in his mind pairs of eclipses visible in England, and books of prediction concerning them, and if we suppose he was writing in the end of 1603 or the beginning of 1604, could he not have written the passages in question concerning the eclipses of 1598 and 1601, and the predictions concerning them ? 1 Mr. Wright also hesitatingly refers to the idea that 1 For information respecting the eclipses of the years 1598 and 1601, I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. W. H. Wesley, Royal Astronomical Society, Burlington House. when Shakespeare wrote the words "machinations, hollowness, treachery," etc. (I. ii. 124, 125), the Gunpowder Plot of the 5th November 1605 was in his mind. This idea, which some critics confidently accept, I take, though possible, to be more visionary than the last; and I think that these words of the late Mr. Halliwell Phillipps are wise, "In fixing the date of a play of Shakespeare, allusions to such matters as eclipses, earthquakes, etc., must be regarded as exceedingly treacherous criteria." In conclusion, though, as I have already said, we cannot determine the date of this play with absolute precision, I am very strongly inclined to think that it should be placed well within the year 1606. Mr. Sidney Lee, in his Life of Shakespeare (1898), p. 241, places it in that year, though without reason assigned. My reason is that the fact that it was performed before James the First at the end of 1606 points to this year; the plays selected on such occasions being seldom or never old plays. Shakespeare, in the tragedy of King Lear, has not confined himself to the famous tale of the fortunes of that monarch; in Othello he confines himself to the story of the Moor and Desdemona; in Romeo and Juliet he confines himself to the fortunes of that "pair of starcross'd lovers"; but in King Lear Shakespeare has introduced, and blended with the original story, another theme of filial ingratitude and of filial faithfulness, that of the Earl of Gloucester and his two sons. With regard to the story of King Lear, that touching and oft-told tale, there is not absolute agreement among critics as to the exact sources from whence he drew; he followed, indeed, no one version of the story, known to us, very closely, but altered it in many ways to suit his purpose. In the first place, he alone gives it a tragic ending. In all the earlier accounts known to us, King Leir is restored in the end to his dominions by his younger daughter and her husband, the King of France, or the ruler of part of France (or Gaul), and the two dukes are killed in battle. Nor in any known account does an Earl of Kent interfere in the cause of Cordelia, incur the sentence of banishment for so doing, and afterwards serve his king and master in disguise. Lear's fool, who plays such an important part in King Lear, is nowhere else introduced. Again, in all earlier accounts which we possess, Leir's three daughters are unmarried when he questions them about their love for him. Shakespeare alone makes Goneril and Regan married (to the Dukes of Albany and Cornwall) at the beginning of the play; and he is the first to introduce the Duke of Burgundy, "rivalling" with the King of France for the hand of his youngest daughter (we shall presently see that it is probable he follows a late source with regard to the coming of the King of France to England). Again, though in the old accounts Lear's two elder daughters are invariably represented as ruthless and cruel towards their old father (in more than one account the elder plans his murder), not one word is said of their amours. Their common passion for Edmund in our play is therefore a new feature in the story. Lastly, Shakespeare alone makes Lear lose his |