PREFACE By ISRAEL GOLLANCZ, M.A. THE FIRST EDITION Measure for Measure was first printed in the First Folio, where it occupies pp. 61-84, and holds the fourth place among the "Comedies." No direct reference to the play has been found anterior to its publication in 1623, nor is there any record of its performance before the Restoration, when Davenant produced his Law against Lovers, a wretched attempt to fuse Measure for Measure and Much Ado About Nothing into one play. THE DATE OF COMPOSITION All arguments for the date of composition of Measure for Measure must be drawn from general considerations of style, and from alleged allusions. As regards the latter, it has been maintained that two passages (Act I, i, 68–71, and Act II, iv, 27-30), offer "a courtly apology for King James I's stately and ungracious demeanor on his entry into England," and various points of likeness in the character of the Duke and James have been detected. This evidence by itself would be of little value, but it certainly corroborates the aesthetic and metrical tests, which fix the date of composition about the year 1603-4. Further, in 1607, William Barksted, an admirer of our poet, published a poem, entitled Myrrha, the Mother of Adonis, wherein occurs an obvious reminiscence of a passage in Measure for Measure:- "And like as when some sudden extasie When he's discerned to swoon, straight by an by (cp. Measure for Measure, II, iv, 24–27). Mr. Stokes has advanced the ingenious conjecture that Barksted, as one of the children of the Revels, may have been the original actor of the part of Isabella.1 The strongest argument for the date 1603, generally adopted by critics, is derived from the many links between this play and Hamlet; they both contain similar reflections on Life and Death, though Measure for Measure “deals, not like Hamlet with the problems which beset one of exceptional temperament, but with mere human nature" (W. Pater, Appreciations, p. 179). There are, moreover, striking parallelisms of expression in the two plays. Similarly, incidents in Measure for Measure recall All's Well that Ends Well; Isabella and Helena seem almost twinsisters; but the questions at issue concerning the latter play are too intricate to warrant us in drawing conclusions as regards the date of the former play. SOURCE OF THE PLAY The plot of Measure for Measure was ultimately derived from the Hecatommithi of Giraldi Cinthio (Decad. 8, Nov. 5): the direct source, however, was a dramatization of the story by George Whetstone, whose Promos and Cassandra, never acted, was printed in 1578. The title of this tedious production is noteworthy as indicating the rough outline of Shakespeare's original: The Right Excellent and Famous | History of Promos and Cassandra; divided into two Comical Discourses. | In the first part is shown, the unsufferable abuse of a lewd Magistrate, the virtuous behaviour of a chaste Lady; the uncontrolled lewdness of a favoured Courtesan, 1 Cp. The Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays; H. P. Stokes; pp. 106-109, and the undeserved estimation of a pernicious Parasite. | In the second part is discoursed, | the perfect magnanimity a noble King in checking Vice and favouring Virtue: Wherein is shown the Ruin and Overthrow of dishonest practices, with the advancement of upright dealing. | (Cp. Hazlitt's Shakespeare Library; Part II, Vol. ii.) In 1582 Whetstone included a prose version of the same story in his Heptameron of Civil Discourses,—a version probably known to Shakespeare; it has even been inferred that "in this narrative he may well have caught the first glimpse of a composition with nobler proportions.” The old play of Promos and Cassandra may claim the distinction of having provided the rough material for Measure for Measure; the earlier production should be read in order to understand, somewhat at least, how the poet has transformed his crude original; how he has infused into it a loftier motive; how he has ennobled its heroine, and created new episodes and new characters. The picture of the wronged, dejected mistress of the moated grange is wholly Shakespeare's. DURATION OF ACTION The time of action consists of four days: Day 1. Act I, sc. i, may be taken as a kind of prelude, after which some little interval must be supposed in order to permit the new governors of the city to settle to their work. The rest of the play is comprised in three consecutive days. Day 2 commences with Act I, sc. ii, and ends with Act IV, sc. ii. Day 3 commences with Act IV, sc. ii, and ends with t IV, sc. iv. Day 4 includes Act IV, scs. v and vi, and the whole of Act V, which is one scene only (P. A. Daniel; On the Times in Shakespeare's Plays: New Shakespeare Soc., 1877-79). INTRODUCTION By HENRY NORMAN HUDSON, A.M. Measure for Measure stands the fourth in the list of Comedies in the folio of 1623, where it was first printed. The divisions and subdivisions of acts and scenes are carefully noted in the original edition, and at the end is a list of the persons represented, under the usual heading, "The names of all the actors." Though the general scope and sense of the dialogue are everywhere clear enough, there are several obscure and doubtful words and passages, which cause us to regret, more than in any of the preceding plays, the want of earlier impressions to illustrate, and rectify, or establish, the text. As it is, the right reading in some places can scarce be cleared of uncertainty, or placed beyond controversy. The strongly-marked peculiarity in the language, cast of thought, and moral temper of Measure for Measure, have invested the play with great psychological interest, and bred a strange curiosity among critics to connect it in some way with the author's mental history; with some supposed crisis in his feelings and experience. Hence the probable date of its composition was for a long time argued more strenuously than the subject would otherwise seem to justify; and, as often falls out in such cases, the more the critics argued the point, the farther they were from coming to an agreement. But, what is not a little remarkable, the best thinkers have here struck widest of the truth; the dull matter-of-fact critics have borne the palm away from their more philosophical brethren;-an edifying instance how little the brightest speculation can do in questions properly falling within the domain of facts. Tieck and Ulrici, proceeding mainly upon internal evidence, fix the date somewhere between 1609 and 1612; and it is quite curious to observe how confident and positive they are in their inferences: Ulrici, after stating the reasons of Tieck for 1612, says "The later origin of the piece-certainly it did not precede 1609-is vouched still more strongly by the profound masculine earnestness which pervades it, and by the prevalence of the same tone of feeling which led Shakespeare to abandon the life and pursuits of London for his native town.” Until since these conclusions were put forth, the English critics, in default of other data, grounded their reasonings upon certain probable allusions to contemporary matters; especially those passages which express the Duke's fondness for "the life remov'd," and his aversion to being greeted by crowds of people: and Chalmers, a very considerable instance of critical dullness, had the sagacity to discover a sort of portrait-like resemblance in the Duke to King James I. As the King was undeniably a much better theologian than statesman or governor, the circumstance of the Duke's appearing so much more at home in the cowl and hood than in his ducal robes certainly lends some credit to this discovery. The King's unamiable repugnance to being gazed upon by throngs of admiring subjects is thus spoken of by a contemporary writer: "In his public appearance, especially in his sports, the accesses of the people made him so impatient, that he often dispersed them with frowns, that we may not say with curses." And his unhandsome bearing towards the crowds which, prompted by eager loyalty, flocked forth to hail his accession, is noted by several historians. But he was a pretty liberal, and, for the time, judicious encourager of the drama, as well as of other learned delectations; and with those who sought or had tasted his patronage it was natural that these symptoms of weakness, or of something worse, should pass for tokens of a wise superiority to the dainties of popular applause. All which renders it quite probable that the Poet may |