A 13th Century work attributed - not without dispute - to Anthony of Padua (a contemporary and protege of Francis of Assisi, and among the very first of Franciscan Friars - but that's another story), based on the Canon of The Latin Vulgate, generally is accepted to be the earliest known complete concordance of the Christian Bible. Some works of early Church Fathers, notably but not exclusively, of Justyn Martyr in the Second Century, and of John Chrysostom in the Fourth Century, among others, approach the concept in effect. Certain writings of Jewish scholars, again notably but not exclusively The Midrash, very much resembling - in purpose and effect, at any rate - greatly, some as in by more than a millenium, predate the Paduan manuscript as concordances of a sort. Similarly-themed works pertaining to the scriptures of Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions are known to exist, some dating very nearly to the appearance of writing, dealing with scriptures of religions known today only through archaeology. Who used which word in what context within which works at what time long has been a fascination of folks with time on their hands.
Somewhat abashedly, I admit I was unaware of formal Shakespearean concordances, though on reflection I cannot imagine that such would not exist; folks being as folks are, somebody would have to have come up with them. Even Homer has been given the treatment, and quite anciently, at that. IMO: File alongside numerology and numerology's latest itteration, "computer-revealed Biblical codes".
BTW - I came up with my "Minutes
" count via a CD-ROM edition of Shakespeare's Collected Works - its an old set (XP runs it only - and grudgingly - in '98 Compatability Mode), but I figure Shakespeare ain't real likely to have changed much since I got the disks, so though newer, flashier compilations readly may be had, no compelling reason to run out and grab one suggests itself.
And so much for getting this topic back on focus, I guess