As I launch into my first big personal project for 2017, the Roughly Chronological Re-read, I’d like to acknowledge the amount of guesswork that’s going into this. There is no clear chronology for Shakespeare’s plays. I don’t claim to have discovered one. What I have done is read a lot of other people’s suggestions and drawn up a reading order. I don’t claim that my decisions are anything other than arbitrary. You’re welcome to argue the toss with me. I’ll probably argue it with myself as I go.
So here’s the order I’m planning to use:
Week 1: Two Gentlemen of Verona
Week 2: The Comedy of Errors
Week 3: Henry VI Part II
Week 4: Henry VI Part III
Week 5: Titus Andronicus
Week 6: Richard III
Week 7: The Taming of the Shrew
Week 8: Henry VI Part 1
Week 9: Love’s Labours Lost
Week 10: Romeo & Juliet
Week 11: Richard II
Week 12: A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Week 13: King John
Week 14: The Merchant of Venice
Week 15: The Merry Wives of Windsor
Week 16: Henry IV Part 1
Week 17: Henry IV Part 2
Week 18: Much Ado About Nothing
Week 19: As You Like It
Week 20: Henry V
Week: 21: Julius Caesar
Week 22: Hamlet
Week 23: Twelfth Night
Week 24: Troilus & Cressida
Week 25: All’s Well That Ends Well
Week 26: Othello
Week 27: Measure for Measure
Week 28: King Lear
Week 29: Timon of Athens
Week 30: Macbeth
Week 31: Anthony & Cleopatra
Week 32: Pericles
Week 33: Coriolanus
Week 34: Cymbeline
Week 35: A Winter’s Tale
Week 36: The Tempest
Week 37: Henry VIII
Week 38: The Two Noble Kinsmen
jenmcgregor.com 
January 4th, 2017 at 20:30
I was wondering about your decisions not to read Double Falsehood, Sir Thomas More and Edward III. I have Arden thirds of the first two (unread) which I assumed I would have to include in any re-read, and Edward III is included in the chronology at Shakespeare’s Words (i.e. David and Ben Crystal).
NOT a criticism at all – genuinely interested, because it will help me decide whether or not to include them in the re-read (albeit that they are technically not RE-reads at all) …
January 4th, 2017 at 22:58
I’ve been swithering over this one. Of those three, the only one I’ve read is Double Falsehood and my decision to leave it out was based on my belief that the script contains Shakespeare in the same way that homeopathic remedies contain active ingredients – maybe it did once, a long time ago, but all that’s left is water. I’m suspicious of the other two because I kind of expect them to prove similar.
My inclination is to omit anything that hasn’t generally appeared in the Complete Works from the main read, then perhaps tackle the contested/rediscovered/fragmentary plays at the end. I know that takes them out of the timeline, which isn’t ideal (though I’d argue that in the case of Double Falsehood, there’s so much of the 18th century about it that it could very well be dated to the 1720s which completely justifies placing it last). Whether to tackle them as individual pieces, though, or to conclude with a general post on the Apocrypha, or to make mini-posts as I go pertaining to these plays as they appear chronologically… I’m not sure.
I’ll try to reach some conclusion on this shortly, before we reach the point where Edward III becomes an issue!
January 9th, 2017 at 19:49
Reblogged this on *the fold of the artist and commented:
*part I of new project… —the (roughly chronological) order in which Shakespeare’s plays will be read…