101 



That he did not allow his dramas to appear piratically, 

 ■without protest, is proved by — that most efficient protest 

 of all — a corrected edition, revised by his own hand, the 

 "Hamlet" of 1604. That he did not subsequently 

 publish other revised plays, is explained by the fair sup- 

 position that his co-partners were opposed to the publi- 

 cation of his plays, as interfering materially, as they 

 might suppose, with their rights, and with their popu- 

 larity for the purposes of representation. Whether he 

 made any other protest cannot be known. That he did 

 not take any active or vigilant measures of repression 

 we might almost assume from his characteristic gentle- 

 ness. But there is nothing to shew that he was insensi- 

 ble to the piracy, or that he did not adopt such means of 

 prevention as were practicable, or consistent with his 

 nature. 



Next, as to his adoption of plots and co-partnership in 

 authorship in advanced life, and in the best season of his 

 literaiy magnificence, this seems true but of two plays — 

 " Timon of Athens" and " Henry VIII." It may be that 

 these plays were altered after his death, or were left un- 

 finished in the sense in which they now appear ; or that, 

 fixing them as among the latest of his plays, and assign- 

 ing to them the dates of production of 1613-14, or 1611, 

 Shakspere may have then been resident at Stratford or 

 visiting there. " Henry VIII." was hastily thrown to- 

 gether for a particular representation, and transmitted 

 to his partners in London, with the intention of subse- 

 quent revision. If the poet was the William bhak- 

 Bpere who appears in the militia roll for the hundred of 

 Barlichway in 1610, his residence in Stratford would be 

 proved, which would render such an event possible, pre- 

 suming the date of the first representation of " Henry 

 Vin." to have been as early as it is fixed by Knight. 

 Whether it was altered or interpolated by Jonson or 



