ABSTRACT
When Heminges and Condell were preparing Shakespeare's First Folio for publication, Jonson's Folio of 1616 provided the obvious – and indeed the only – possible template. It is not just in the title that Shakespeare's Folio is carefully differentiated from that of Jonson, it is in the cataloguing too. While Jonson lists his plays chronologically, Heminges and Condell catalogue the plays according to the three genres specified in the title. Among modern scholars, however, this tripartite division of the plays is now almost invariably found wanting. The authors have invented new categories – problem plays, Roman plays, and late plays – which reflect an ongoing struggle with taxonomy: they have yet to find a stable critical terminology which adequately registers the complexity and variety of the work. Building on Michael Riffaterre's work on linguistic competence, Robert Henke argues that Shakespeare's Blackfriars audiences were highly alert to the generic complexity of the plays.
