Virtual Classroom | Fellowship Home |Chronology

The Orthodox Dating of the Shakespearean Plays:
A Case Study in Methodological Error

By Paul Crowley

 

My 6-year-old nephew recently borrowed a metal
detector and explored a picnic area at a popular
tourist site near here. He found a few coins, lost by
visitors over the past 10 years or so. He wanted to
know when they were lost. The only information he
had was the dates on the coins -- something like
(a) 1992, (b) 1995, (c) 1996, (d) 1998, and (e) 2000.

He reckoned that:

(a) the 1992 coin was lost in 1992
(b) the 1995 coin was lost in 1995
(c) the 1996 coin was lost in 1996
(d) the 1998 coin was lost in 1998
(e) the 2000 coin was lost in 2000

Was he being logical? Perhaps. But it was the logic
of a child; he was not mature enough to look beyond
the immediate facts of each case.

However, he was fully in accord with the methods of
Stratfordian 'scholarship'.

The traditional dating of the plays works on the same basis.
That method is: (i) get the date it was first mentioned;
(ii) say the play was written shortly beforehand -- unless there are pressing reasons to date it a bit earlier.

Why does, and how can, Stratfordian 'scholarship'
operate on the same basis as a young child?
I suggest that it built up its body of 'knowledge' slowly,
without anyone noticing its manifold problems, and
that all those who now work within it either keep their
minds tight shut, or just don't dare to point out fact
that the emperor has no clothes.

The records for the canonical plays before the FF
(First Folio) in early December 1623 are:

4 have no record at all (COR, TIM, AW, TS)
10 have just one record
6 have two records (3H6, TN, JC, T&C, MA, TEM)
4 have three records (CE, MSND, MWW, KL)
3 have four records (2H4, R&J, OTH)
5 have five records (TA, LLL, MV, PER, WT)
3 have six records (HAM, R3, H5)
1 has eight records (1H4)
1 has nine records (R2)

Let's look at the 10 plays with just one record before
the FF (First Folio). I take the estimated date of
composition from Chambers.

1591/2 Hen 6(1) (Henslowe's diaries from 3 Mar 1592)
Years before only record : 0.2
Years between first record and FF: 32.9

1590/1 Hen 6(2) (quarto 1594)
Years before only record : 3.5
Years between first record and FF : 31.9

1594/5 TGV (Meres 1598)
Years before only record : 3.5
Years between first record and FF : 28.9

1596/7 KJohn (Meres 1598)
Years before only record : 1.5
Years between first record and FF : 26.9

1599/00 AYLI (printing stayed 4 Aug 1600)
Years before only record : 0.6
Years between first record and FF : 23.9

1604 Measure (acted at Court 26 Dec 1604)
Years before only record : 0.5
Years between first record and FF : 19.4

1606 Macbeth (Globe - Forman 20 April 1610)
Years before only record : 3.8
Years between first record and FF : 17.4

1606/7 Ant.&Cleo (print licence 1608; no quarto)
Years before only record : 1.5
Years between first record and FF : 16.9

1609/10 Cymbeline (Globe -- Forman 21 April 1611)
Years before only record : 1.4
Years between first record and FF : 13.9

1612/13 Henry 8 (Globe burnt down 29 June 1613)
Years before only record : 0.5
Years between first record and FF : 10.9

In ALL cases the gap between the estimated date of
writing and the first record is only a small fraction of the
gap between the first and the second record (the FF).

At this point, anyone with a sensitivity to numbers or to
Statistics, will feel the hairs on the back of their necks
rising. This is ALL WRONG.

The figures for the first gap are FAR too low (totalling
17 years) : 0.2, 3.5, 3.5, 1.5, 0.6, 0.5, 3.8, 1.5, 1.4, 0.5.
as compared with the second gap -- between the first
record and the second (the FF) -- totalling 223 years:
32.9, 31.9, 28.9, 26.9, 23.9, 19.4, 17.4, 16.9, 13.9, 10.9,

Any closer inspection makes these figures seem worse.
After all, the First Folio did not have to be published.
Or it could have come out 50 or 100 years later. The
second 'gap' (between the first record and the Folio)
has been artificially created -- or set low.

Then look at the figures for the first gap and examine its
larger figures; we can see that the 'pressing reasons'
(mentioned above) apply.

The dominant one is that Stratfordians 'know' when the playwright was working and so deliberately squeeze everything into the time available.

The 3.5 years for Two Gentlemen of Verona and for
2 Henry 6 derives from the fact that Meres listed 12 plays
in 1598; Stratfordians have to fit ALL of them (and the
Henry 6 plays which he did not list) into the period before
1598; this results in larger 'gaps' for some of those 15
plays, and smaller gaps for others of the 15.
The 3.8 years for Macbeth comes from the fact that it is
thought that play was written to celebrate(!) the accession
of a scottish king, James I and VI, to the English throne.

We are looking at a period of over thirty years between
1591 and 1623, yet we have an average gap of 1.7 years
between the writing and the first record. Is there any
remotely likely justification for dating the composition so
close to the first record?

IF the plays were only performed in the first few months
after writing then there might be a case. But no one claims
that; (Gurr suggests a six-year revival cycle.) And three of
these records are associated with printing, which should
be years down the road (under the traditional theory).
Two others are from Meres -- and there is no reason why
his record should be so close to composition, and many
reasons why it should be long after composition.

What would be a reasonable estimate for the date of
composition -- on the basis of the data? The question
is similar to that posed by the set of coins. When were
they lost? We'd reckon -- on average -- roughly about
half way between their date of minting and date of
discovery.

The average gap between writing and the first record
should be --roughly --the same as that between the first
and the second record (in each case the FF). In other
words, they should be dated about 15 to 20 years earlier.

 

Virtual Classroom | Fellowship Home |Chronology