Chapter 4 concentrates on history plays in collection because the act of gathering and publishing texts as a bound group involves an assessment of ‘kinds’ and makes a statement about genre. It proposes that, beyond two-part plays, the first collections of commercial drama to prioritize ‘history’ as part of their design were the so-called Pavier quartos (a planned collection of ten plays published in 1619), and Shakespeare’s First Folio in 1623. The chapter argues that the 1619 collection underscores the fluidity and inclusivity of history as a genre, incorporates monarchical histories alongside citizen and legendary histories, and resembles early modern Sammelbände in its construction. Shakespeare’s Folio, in contrast, singularizes and solidifies its ‘Histories’ by creating a dramatic category that is based exclusively on English monarchical history after the Conquest. This chapter offers a new perspective on these much-discussed publication ventures: it concentrates on the statements they make about history, assesses who was responsible for their design, and shows how their presentation promotes competing notions of ‘history’ and ideas of timeliness and timelessness.

Chapter 2 argues that Andrew Wise’s editions of Richard II, Richard III, 1 Henry IV, and 2 Henry IV established Shakespeare’s early print reputation as a dramatist of English monarchical history. The chapter begins by driving a wedge between stage and print patterns during the late sixteenth century, demonstrating that Shakespeare’s English histories were unrepresentative of the historical subjects that were popular on the London stages. It proposes that Wise’s selection and presentation strategies were contingent on three main factors: the book trade’s interest in English monarchical history and its application to Elizabethan politics; the connection of Wise to Shakespeare’s company and George Carey’s patronized writers, which can be seen as a flexible model of textual patronage that eschews a direct link between patron and stationer; and the growing marketability of Shakespeare’s name. The result is an assessment of Shakespeare’s histories and ideas of genre that reveals the intersection of multiple agendas: it draws attention to the book trade as a collaborative system of exchange that frustrates efforts at singularizing agency and notions of genre.