[ 297 ]
lowers of the Earl of Eſex, on the 7th of February 1600—1, deſired a company of actors to perform King Richard II. they alleged “ that the play was old, and that they ſhould have a loſs in playing it.”
Our author’s performance, however, might have been intended; and the players, perhaps, conſidered a play as old, that had been three or four years in poſſeſſion of the ſtage. They might have only meant, that it was not of that ſeaſon. Indeed, I the rather think that this was their meaning, becauſe there is no trace in the Stationers’ books, nor in any ancient catalogue that I have ſeen, of any play on this ſubject, except that of Shakſpeare.
In further ſupport of his hypotheſis, Dr. Farmer relies on the doctrines of indefeaſable right contained in this play, which, he thinks, could not have been agreeable to the inſurgents abovementioned. But they do not appear to have been ſo much concerned about the ſentiments of the piece, (with which, perhaps, they were unacquainted) as deſirous to behold the cataſtrophe that it exhibits.—This, I conceive, may be collected from the paragraph ſubjoined to that which Dr. Farmer has quoted—“ So earneſt hee (Merricke) was, to ſatisfy his eyes with a fight of that tragedie, which he thought ſoone after his Lord ſhould bring from the ſtage to the ſtate[1].”
16. Richard III. 1597.
Entered at the Stationers’ hall, Oct. 20, 1597. Printed in that year.
17. First Part of K. Henry IV. 1597.
Entered Feb. 25, 1597, according to our preſent reckoning, 1598. Written therefore probably in 1597. Printed in 1598.
18. The Merchant of Venice, 1598.
Entered July 22, 1598; and mentioned by Meres in that year. Publiſhed in 1600.
19. All’s Well that Ends Well, 1598.
All’s Well that Ends Well was not regiſtered at Stationers’
- ↑ Proceedings at the Arraignment of Sir Gilly Merricke, 4to. 1601.
