| Welcome to PhiloLogic |
| home | the ARTFL project | download | documentation | sample databases | |
|
James Boswell [1821], The plays and poems of William Shakspeare, with the corrections and illustrations of various commentators: comprehending A Life of the Poet, and an enlarged history of the stage, by the late Edmond Malone. With a new glossarial index (J. Deighton and Sons, Cambridge) [word count] [S10201]. To look up a word in a dictionary, select the word with your mouse and press 'd' on your keyboard.
Edward is discovered sitting on his Throne;
Queen Elizabeth with the infant Prince, Clarence,
Gloster, Hastings, and Others, near him.
| |||
THE subject stated. The inferior parts in these three plays
being of a different complexion from the inferior parts of Shakspeare's
undoubted performances, a proof that they were not
written originally and entirely by him.—Mr. Malone's hypothesis.
The First Part of K. Henry VI. not written by him, p. 557.
The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. formed by Shakspeare
on two elder plays, the one entitled the First Part of the
Contention of the Two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster,
with the Death of the good Duke Humphrey, &c. the other, The
true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, and the Death of
good King Henry the Sixt. p. 558. The diction, versification, and allusions, of this piece all different
from the diction, versification, and allusions of Shakspeare,
and corresponding with those of the dramatists that preceded him,
p. 558–564. Date of this play some years before 1592; p. 564.
Other internal evidence (beside the diction, &c.) that this piece
was not written by Shakspeare; nor by the author of The First
Part of the Contention of the Two Houses, &c. nor by the author
of The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, p. 565
–567. Presumptive proof that this play was not written by
Shakspeare, from its not containing any similarities of thought
to his undisputed plays, nor of expression, (except in a single instance,)
and from its general paucity of rhymes, p. 568. I.
1. Mars his true moving, even as in the heavens, 2. A far more glorious star thy soul will make This blank, Dr. Johnson with the highest probability conjectures,
should be filled up with “Berenice;” a word that the
transcriber or compositor probably could not make out. In the
same manner he left a blank in a subsequent passage for the name
of “Nero,” as is indubitably proved by the following line, which
ascertains the omitted word. See No. 6. 3. Was Mahomet inspired with a dove? 4. Helen, the mother of great Constantine, 5. Froisard, a countryman of ours, records, &c. 6. &lblank; and, like thee, [Nero,] [In the original copy there is a blank where the word Nero is now placed.] 7. The spirit of deep prophecy she hath, 8. A witch, by fear, not force, like Hannibal, 9. Divinest creature, Astræa's daughter &lblank;. 10. &lblank; Adonis' gardens, 11. A statelier pyramis to her I'll rear, 12. &lblank; an urn more precious 13. I shall as famous be by this exploit, 14. I thought I should have seen some Hercules, 15. Nestor-like aged, in an age of care. 16. Then follow thou thy desperate sire of Crete, 17. Where is the great Alcides of the field? 18. Now am I like that proud insulting ship,
19. Is Talbot slain; the Frenchman's only scourge, 20. Thou may'st not wander in that labyrinth; 21. See, how the ugly witch doth bend her brows, 22. &lblank; thus he goes, Of particular expressions there are many in this play, that seem
to me more likely to have been used by the authors already
named, than by Shakspeare; but I confess, with Dr. Johnson,
that single words can conclude little. However, I will just mention
that the words proditor and immanity, which occur in this
piece, are not, I believe, found in any Shakspeare's undisputed
performances. The versification of this play appears to me clearly of a different
colour from that of all our author's genuine dramas, while at the
same time it resembles that of many of the plays produced before
the time of Shakspeare. In all the tragedies written before his time, or just when he
commenced author, a certain stately march of versification is very
observable. The sense concludes or pauses almost uniformly at
the end of every line; and the verse has scarcely ever a redundant
syllable. As the reader may not have any of these pieces at hand,
(by the possession of which, however, his library would not be
much enriched,) I shall add a few instances,—the first that
occur:
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
The tragedies of Marius and Sylla, by T. Lodge, 1594, A Looking
Glass for London and England, by T. Lodge and R. Greene,
1598, Solyman and Perseda, written before 1792, Selimus, Emperour
of the Turks, 1594, The Spanish Tragedy, 1592, and Titus
Andronicus, will all furnish examples of a similar versification;
a versification so exactly corresponding with that of the First Part
of King Henry VI. and The Whole Contention of the Two Houses
of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. as it originally appeared, that I have
no doubt these plays were the production of some one or other of
the authors of the pieces above quoted or enumerated. A passage in a pamphlet written by Thomas Nashe, an intimate
friend of Greene, Peele, &c. shows that The First Part of King
Henry VI. had been on the stage before 1592; and his favourable
mention of this piece inclines me to believe that it was written by
a friend of his. “How would it have joyed brave Talbot, (says
Nashe in Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication to the Devil, 1592,)
the terror of the French, to thinke that after he had lyen two hundred
yeare in his tombe, he should triumph again on the stage;
and have his bones new embalmed with the teares of ten thousand
spectators at least, (at several times) who in the tragedian that represents
his person behold him fresh bleeding.” This passage was several years ago pointed out by my friend
Dr. Farmer, as a proof of the hypothesis which I am now endeavouring
to establish. That it related to the old play of King
Henry VI. or, as it is now called, The First Part of King Henry VI.
cannot, I think, be doubted. Talbot appears in the First part,
and not in the second or third part; and is expressly spoken of in
the play, (as well as in Hall's Chronicle,) as “the terror of the
French.” Holinshed, who was Shakspeare's guide, omits the
passage in Hall, in which Talbot is thus described; and this is an
additional proof that this play was not our author's. But of this
more hereafter. The First Part of King Henry VI. (as it is now called) furnishes
us with other internal proofs also of its not being the work of Shakspeare. 1. The author of that play, whoever he was, does not seem to
have known precisely how old Henry the Sixth was at the time of
his father's death. He opens his play indeed with the funeral of
Henry the Fifth, but no where mentions expressly the young
king's age. It is clear, however, from one passage, that he supposed
him to have passed the state of infancy before he lost his
father, and even to have remembered some of his sayings. In
the fourth Act, Sc. IV. speaking of the famous Talbot, he says: But Shakspeare, as appears from two passages, one in the second,
and the other in the Third Part of King Henry VI. knew that
that king could not possibly remember any thing his father had
said; and therefore Shakspeare, could not have been the author of
the first part. The first of these passages is found in the folio copy of The Second
Part of King Henry VI. and not in The First Part of the
Contention, &c. printed in quarto; and according to my hypothesis,
was one of Shakspeare's additions to the old play. This
therefore does not prove that the original author, whoever he was,
was not likewise the author of The First Part of King Henry VI.;
but, what is more material to our present question, it proves that
Shakspeare could not be the author of that play. The second of
these passages is found in The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of
Yorke, &c. and is a decisive proof that The First Part of King
Henry VI. was written neither by the author of that tragedy, nor by Shakspeare.
2. A second internal proof that Shakspeare was not the author
of the first part of these three plays, is furnished by that scene,
(Act II. Sc. V. p. 75, n. 3,) in which it is said, that the Earl of
Cambridge raised an army against his sovereign. But Shakspeare
in his play of King Henry V. has represented the matter
truly as it was; the Earl being in the second Act of that historical
piece condemned at Southampton for conspiring to assassinate Henry. 3. I may likewise add, that the author of The First Part of King
Henry VI. knew the true pronunciation of the word Hecate, and
has used it as it is used by the Roman writers: But Shakspeare in his Macbeth always uses Hecate as a dissyllable;
and therefore could not have been the author of the other
piece* note
External Evidence. 1. The entry of The First Part of
the Contention of the Two Houses &c. at Stationers' Hall in 1594,
anonymous. 2. That piece, and the True Tragedie of Richard
Duke of Yorke, printed at first, anonymously. Shakspeare's
name afterwards fraudulently affixed to these pieces, and why.
The same artifice practised with respect to other plays on which
he had constructed dramas, p. 569, 570. 3. These two old plays
performed by Lord Pembroke's Servants, by whom Titus Andronicus,
and The old Taming of a Shrew were performed, and by
whom not one of Shakspeare's undisputed plays were represented,
p. 570. 4. Reasons assigned for supposing Robert Greene, or
George Peele, or both, the author or authors of the old plays,
p. 570–572. 5. These pieces new-modelled and re-written by
Shakspeare, with great additions, which in the present edition
-- 556 --
are distinguished by a peculiar mark, p. 572. The mode
taken by Shakspeare, p. 572–576. 6. The fraud of Pavier the
bookseller, who in the year 1619, after the death of Shakspeare,
affixed his name to these two old plays, accounted for, p. 576.
7. These two old pieces being printed and reprinted, and The
First Part of King Henry VI. not being printed, in Shakspeare's
life time, a presumptive proof that he new-modelled the former,
and had little or no concern with the latter, p. 577.
II. Internal Evidence. 1. The Variations between the two
old plays in quarto, and the corresponding pieces in the folio
edition of our author's dramatick works, of so peculiar a nature,
as to mark two distinct hands. Several passages and circumstances
found in the old plays, of which there is no trace in
Shakspeare's new modification of them; others materially varying.
These insertions and variations could not have arisen from
unskilful copyists or short-hand writers, who sometimes curtail
and mutilate, but do not invent and amplify, p. 578.
2. The Resemblances between certain passages in Shakspeare's
Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. and his undisputed
works, a proof that he wrote a large portion of those plays; and
3. The Discordancies between them and his undisputed plays,
a proof that he did not write the whole; these resemblances
being found only in the folio, that is, in the plays as new-modelled
by Shakspeare; and these discordancies being found
in the old quarto plays, from whence it must be presumed
that they were adopted through carelessness or haste, p. 583.
4. The peculiar Inaccuracies of Shakspeare; and 5. his peculiar
Phraseology, which are found in The Second and Third Part of
King Henry VI. as exhibited in folio, and not in the old quarto
plays printed in 1600, prove that there were two distinct hands in
these pieces. So also do, 6. The Transpositions; and 7. the
Repetitions: and 8. the Inconsistencies arising from sometimes
following, and sometimes departing from, an original model,
p. 585–591. 9. Hall, the historian on whose Chronicle the old
plays in quarto were constructed; but Holinshed and not Hall,
Shakspeare's historian, p. 589.
The whole plays on which Shakspeare formed his Second and
Third Parts of King Henry VI. probably written by the author of
King John, printed in 1591, whoever he was: p. 591. An
attempt made to account for The First Part of King Henry VI.
being printed in the first folio edition of our poet's dramatick
works, p. 591. Objections of Dr. Johnson and others, enumerated.
Recapitulation, p. 592. A considerable part of the
English History dramatized before the time of Shakspeare; and
many of his historical and other plays formed on those of preceding
writers, p. 561. Conclusion, p. 563.not written originally
by SHAKSPEARE.
Several passages in The Second and Third Part of King
Henry VI. appearing evidently to be of the hand of Shakspeare,
I was long of opinion that the three historical dramas which are
the subject of the present disquisition, were properly ascribed to
him; not then doubting that the whole of these plays was the
production of the same person. But a more minute investigation
of the subject, into which I have been led by the revision of all
our author's works, has convinced me, that, though the premises
were true, my conclusion was too hastily drawn; for though the
hand of Shakspeare is unquestionably found in the two latter of
these plays, it does not therefore necessarily follow, that they
were originally and entirely composed by him. My thoughts
upon this point have already been intimated in the foregoing
notes; but it is now necessary for me to state my opinion more
particularly, and to lay before the reader the grounds on which,
after a very careful inquiry, it has been formed.
What at present I have chiefly in view is, to account for the
visible inequality in these pieces; many traits of Shakspeare being
clearly discernible in them, while the inferior parts are not merely
unequal to the rest, (from which no certain conclusion can be
drawn,) but of quite a different complexion from the inferior
parts of our author's undoubted performances.
My hypothesis then is, that The First Part of King Henry VI.
as it now appears, (of which no quarto copy is extant,) was the
entire or nearly the entire production of some ancient dramatist;
-- 558 --
that The Whole Contention of the Two Houses of York and Lancaster,
&c. written probably before the year 1590, was also the
composition of some writer who preceded Shakspeare; and that
from this piece, which is in two parts, (the former of which is
entitled, The First Part of the Contention of the Two famous
Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the Death of the good
Duke Humphrey, &c. first printed in 1594; and the latter,
The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, and the Death of
good King Henrie the Sixt, which originally appeared in 1595,
and both parts printed together in 1600;) our poet formed the
two plays, entitled, The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI.
as they appear in the first folio edition of his works.
Mr. Upton has asked, “How does the painter distinguish
copies from originals but by manner and style? And have not
authors their peculiar style and manner, from which a true critick
can form as unerring a judgment as a painter?” Dr. Johnson,
though he has shown, with his usual acuteness, that, “this illustration
of the critick's science will not prove what is desired,”
acknowledges in a preceding note, that “dissimilitude of style
and heterogeneousness of sentiment may sufficiently show that a
work does not really belong to the reputed author. But in these
plays (he adds) no such marks of spuriousness are found. The
diction, versification, and the figures, are Shakspeare's.”—By
these criterions then let us examine The First Part of K. Henry VI.
(for I choose to consider that piece separately;) and if the diction,
the figures, or rather the allusions, and the versification of
that play, (for these are our surest guides) shall appear to be
different from the other two parts, as they are exhibited in the
folio, and from our author's other plays, we may fairly conclude
that he was not the writer of it.
I. With respect to the diction and the allusions, which I shall
consider under the same head, it is very observable that in The
First Part of King Henry VI. there are more allusions to mythology,
to classical authors, and to ancient and modern history,
than, I believe, can be found in any one piece of our author's,
written on an English story; and that these allusions are introduced
very much in the same manner as they are introduced in
the plays of Greene, Peele, Lodge, and other dramatists who preceded
Shakspeare; that is, they do not naturally arise out of the
subject, but seem to be inserted merely to show the writer's learning* note
. Of these the following are the most remarkable:
So in the earth, to this day is not known.
Than Julius Cæsar, or bright—
Nor yet Saint Philip's daughters, were like thee.
Play on the lute, beholding the towns burning.
Exceeding the nine Sybils of old Rome.
Drives back our troops &lblank;.
That one day bloom'd, and fruitful were the next.
Than Rhodope's, or Memphis', ever was.
Than the rich-jewel'd coffer of Darius.
As Scythian Thomyris, by Cyrus' death.
A second Hector, for his grim aspéct.
Thou Icarus.
That Cæsar and his fortune bare at once.
Your kingdom's terror, and black Nemesis?
There Minotaurs, and ugly treasons lurk.
As if, with Circe, she would change my shape.
As did the youthful Paris once to Greece;
With hope to find the like event in love.
“Most loyal lords, and faithful followers,
“That have with me, unworthy general,
“Passed the greedy gulph of Ocean,
“Leaving the confines of fair Italy,
“Behold, your Brutus draweth nigh his end.
“And I must leave you, though against my will.
“My sinews shrink, my numbed senses fail,
“A chilling cold possesseth all my bones:
“Black ugly death, with visage pale and wan,
“Presents himself before my dazzled eyes,
“And with his dart prepared is to strike.”
Locrine, 1595.
“My lord of Gloucester, and lord Mortimer,
“To do you honour in your sovereign's eyes,
“That, as we hear, is newly come aland,
“From Palestine, with all his men of war,
“(The poor remainder of the royal fleet,
“Preserv'd by miracle in Sicil road,)
“Go mount your coursers, meet him on the way;
“Pray him to spur his steed, minutes and hours,
“Untill his mother see her princely son,
“Shining in glory of his safe return.”
Edward I. by George Peele, 1593.
“Then go thy ways, and clime up to the clouds,
“And tell Apollo that Orlando sits
“Making of verses for Angelica.
“And if he do deny to send me down
“The shirt which Deianira sent to Hercules,
“To make me brave upon my wedding day,
“Tell him I'll pass the Alps, and up to Meroe,
“(I know he knows that watry lakish hill)
“And pull the harp out of the minstrels hands,
“And pawne it unto lovely Proserpine,
“That she may fetch the faire Angelica.”
Orlando Furioso, by Robert Greene, printed in 1599; written before 1592.
“The work that Ninus rear'd at Babylon,
“The brazen walls fram'd by Semiramis,
“Carv'd out like to the portal of the sunne,
“Shall not be such as rings the English strand
“From Dover to the market-place of Rye.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“To plain our questions, as Apollo did.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Facile and debonaire in all his deeds,
“Proportion'd as was Paris, when in gray,
“He courted Oenon in the vale by Troy.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Who dar'd for Edward's sake cut through the seas,
“And venture as Agenor's damsel through the deepe.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“England's rich monarch, brave Plantagenet,
“The Pyren mountains swelling above the clouds,
“That ward this wealthy Castile in with walls,
“Could not detain the beauteous Eleanor;
“But hearing of the fame of Edward's youth,
“She dar'd to brave Neptunus' haughty pride,
“And brave the brunt of froward Eolus.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Daphne, the damsel that caught Phœbus fast,
“And lock'd him in the brightness of her looks,
“Was not so beauteous in Apollo's eyes,
“As is fair Margaret, to the Lincoln earl.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“We must lay plots for stately tragedies.
“Strange comick shews, such as proud Roscius
“Vaunted before the Roman emperours.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Lacy, thou can'st not shrowd thy traitorous thoughts,
“Nor cover, as did Cassius, all his wiles;
“For Edward hath an eye that looks as far
“As Lynceus from the shores of Greecia.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Pardon, my lord: If Jove's great royalty
“Sent me such presents as to Danae;
“If Phœbus tied to Latona's webs,
“Came courting from the beauty of his lodge;
“The dulcet tunes of frolick Mercurie,
“Nor all the wealth heaven's treasury affords
“Should make me leave lord Lacy or his love.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“What will thou do?—
“Shew thee the tree leav'd with refined gold,
“Whereon the fearful dragon held his seate,
“That watch'd the garden call'd Hesperides,
“Subdued and wonne by conquering Hercules.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“&lblank; Margaret,
“That overshines our damsels, as the moone
“Darkens the brightest sparkles of the night.”
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Should Paris enter in the courts of Greece,
“And not lie fetter'd in fair Helen's looks?
“Or Phœbus scape those piercing amorists,
“That Daphne glanced at his deitie?
“Can Edward then sit by a flame and freeze,
“Whose heats put Hellen and fair Daphne down?”
The Honourable Historie of Friar Bacon, &c. by Robert Greene; written before 1592, printed in 1598.
“King.
Thus far, ye English Peers, have we display'd
“Our waving ensigns with a happy war;
“Thus nearly hath our furious rage reveng'd
“My daughter's death upon the traiterous Scot;
“And now before Dunbar our camp is pitch'd,
“Which if it yield not to our compromise,
“The place shall furrow where the palace stood,
“And fury shall envy so high a power,
“That mercy shall be banish'd from our sword.
“Doug.
What seeks the English king?
“King.
Scot, ope those gates, and let me enter in.
“Submit thyself and thine unto my grace,
“Or I will put each mother's son to death,
“And lay this city level with the ground.”
James IV. by Robert Greene, printed in 1598; written before 1592.
“Valeria, attend; I have a lovely bride
“As bright as is the heaven chrystaline;
“As faire as is the milke-white way of Jove,
“As chaste as Phœbe in her summer sports,
“As soft and tender as the azure downe
“That circles Citherea's silver doves;
“Her do I meane to make my lovely bride,
“And in her bed to breathe the sweet content
“That I, thou know'st, long time have aimed at.”
The Taming of a Shrew, written before 1594.
“Pol.
Faire Emilia, summers bright sun queene,
“Brighter of hew than is the burning clime
“Where Phœbus in his bright equator sits,
“Creating gold and pretious minerals,
“What would Emilia doe, if I were fond
“To leave faire Athens, and to range the world?
“Emil.
Should thou assay to scale the seate of Jove,
“Mounting the subtle airie regions,
“Or be snacht up, as erst was Ganimede,
“Love should give wings unto my swift desires,
“And prune my thoughts, that I would follow thee,
“Or fall and perish as did Icarus.”
Ibid.
“Barons of England, and my noble lords,
“Though God and fortune hath bereft from us
“Victorious Richard, scourge of infidels,
“And clad this land in stole of dismal hue,
“Yet give me leave to joy, and joy you all,
“That from this wombe hath sprung a second hope,
“A king that may in rule and virtue both
“Succeed his brother in his emperie.”
The troublesome Raigne of King John, 1591.
“&lblank; as sometimes Phaeton,
“Mistrusting silly Merops for his sire &lblank;.”
Ibid.
“As cursed Nero with his mother did,
“So I with you, if you resolve me not.”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Peace, Arthur, peace! thy mother makes thee wings,
“To soar with peril after Icarus.”
Ibid.
“How doth Alecto whisper in my ears,
“Delay not, Philip, kill the villaine straight.”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Philippus atavis edite regibus,
“What saist thou, Philip, sprung of ancient kings,—
“Quo me rapit tempestas?”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Morpheus, leave here thy silent ebon cave,
“Besiege his thoughts with dismal phantasies;
“And ghastly objects of pale threatning Mors,
“Affright him every minute with stern looks.”
Ibid.
“Here is the ransome that allaies his rage
“The first freehold that Richard left his sonne,
“With which I shall surprize his living spies,
“As Hector's statue did the fainting Greeks.”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“This cursed country, where the traitors breathe,
“Whose perjurie (as proud Briareus)
“Beleaguers all the sky with misbelief.”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“Must Constance speak? let tears prevent her talk.
“Must I discourse? let Dido sigh, and say,
“She weeps again to hear the wrack of Troy.”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“John, 'tis thy sins that make it miserable,
“Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.”
Ibid.
&stellam; &stellam; &stellam;
“King.
Robert of Artoys, banish'd though thou be,
“From France, thy native country, yet with us
“Thou shalt retain as great a signorie,
“For we create thee earle of Richmond here:
“And now go forwards with our pedigree;
“Who next succeeded Philip of Bew?
“Art.
Three sonnes of his, which, all successfully,
“Did sit upon their father's regal throne;
“Yet died, and left no issue of their loynes.
“King
But was my mother sister unto these?
“Art.
She was, my lord, and only Isabel
“Was all the daughters that this Philip had.”
The Raigne of King Edward III. 1596.
“When I was young (as yet I am not old,)
“I do remember how my father said,
“A stouter champion never handled sword.”
“No sooner was I crept out of my cradle,
“But I was made a king at nine months old.”
King Henry VI. Part II. Act IV. Sc. IX.
“When I was crown'd, I was but nine months old.”
King Henry VI. Part III. Act I. Sc. I.
“I speak not to that railing Heca-té.”
Having now, as I conceive, vindicated Shakspeare from being the writer of The First Part of King Henry VI. it may seem unnecessary to enquire who was the author; or whether it was the production of the same person or persons who wrote the two pieces, entitled, The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses, &c. and The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, &c. However, I shall add a word or two on that point.
We have already seen that the author of the play last named could not have written The First Part of King Henry VI. The following circumstances prove that it could not have been written by the author of The First Part of the Contention, &c. supposing for a moment that piece, and The true Tragedie of the Duke of Yorke, &c. to have been the work of different hands.
1. The writer of The First Part of the Contention, &c. makes Salisbury say to Richard Duke of York, that the person from whom the Duke derived his title, (he means his maternal uncle Edmund Mortimer, though he ignorantly gives him a different appellation,) was “done to death by that monstrous rebel Owen Glendower;” and Shakspeare in this has followed him:
“Sal.On this false assertion the Duke of York makes no remark. But the author of The First Part of King Henry VI. has represented this Edmund Mortimer, not as put to death, or kept in captivity to the time of his death, by Owen Glendower, (who himself died in the second year of King Henry V.) but as a state prisoner, who died in the Tower in the reign of King Henry VI. in the presence of this very Duke of York, who was then only Richard Plantagenet* note.
2. A correct statement of the issue of King Edward the Third, and of the title of Edmund Mortimer to the crown, is given in The First Part of King Henry VI. But in the First Part of the Contention, &c. we find a very incorrect and false statement of Edward's issue, and of the title of Mortimer, whose father, Roger Mortimer, the author of that piece ignorantly calls the fifth son of that monarch. Those two plays therefore could not have been the work of one hand.
On all these grounds it appears to me clear, that neither Shakspeare, nor the author of The First Part of the Contention, &c. or The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, &c. could have been the author of The First Part of King Henry VI.
It is observable that in The Second and Third Part of King
Henry VI. many thoughts and many modes of expression are found, which likewise occur in Shakspeare's other dramas: but in the First Part I recollect but one marked expression, that is also found in one of his undisputed performances:
So, in King Henry V.:
But surely this is too slight a circumstance to overturn all the other arguments that have now been urged to prove this play not the production of our author. The co-incidence might be accidental, for it is a co-incidence not of thought but of language;— or the expression might have remained in his mind in consequence of his having often seen this play; (we know that he has borrowed many other expressions from preceding writers;)—or lastly, this might have been one of the very few lines that he wrote on revising this piece; which, however few they were, might, with other reasons, have induced the first publishers of his works in folio to print it with the second and third part, and to ascribe it to Shakspeare.
Before I quit this part of the subject, it may be proper to mention one other circumstance that renders it very improbable that Shakspeare should have been the author of The First Part of K. Henry VI. In this play, though one scene is entirely in rhyme, there are very few rhymes dispersed through the piece, and no alternate rhymes; both of which abound in our author's undisputed early plays. This observation indeed may likewise be extended to the second and third part of these historical dramas; and perhaps it may be urged, that if this argument has any weight, it will prove that he had no hand in the composition of those plays. But there being no alternate rhymes in those two plays may be accounted for, by recollecting that in 1591, Shakspeare had not written his Venus and Adonis, or his Rape of Lucrece; the measures of which perhaps insensibly led him to employ a similar kind of metre occasionally in the dramas that he wrote shortly after he had composed those poems. The paucity of regular rhymes must be accounted for differently. My solution is, that working up the materials which were furnished by a preceding writer, he naturally followed his mode: and in the original plays from which these two were formed very few rhymes are found. Nearly the same argument will apply to the first part; for its date also, were that piece Shakspeare's, would account for the want of alternate rhymes. The paucity of regular rhymes indeed cannot be accounted for by saying that here too our author was following the track of another poet; but the solution is unnecessary; for from the beginning to the end of that play, except perhaps in some scenes of the fourth Act, there is not a single print of the footsteps of Shakspeare.
I have already observed, that it is highly improbable that The
First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses of York and Lancaster, &c. and The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c. were written by the author of The First Part of King Henry VI. By whom these two plays were written, it is not here necessary to inquire; it is sufficient, if probable reasons can be produced for supposing this two-part piece not to have been the composition of Shakspeare, but the work of some preceding writer, on which he formed those two plays which appear in the first folio edition of his works, comprehending a period of twenty-six years, from the time of Henry's marriage to that of his death.
II. I now therefore proceed to state my opinion concerning The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI.
“A book entituled, The First Part of the Contention of the Two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the Death of the good Duke Humphrie, and the Banishment and Deathe of the Duke of Yorke, and the tragical Ende of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Jack Cade, and the Duke of Yorke's first Claime unto the Crowne, was entered at Stationers' Hall, by Thomas Millington, March 12, 1593–4. The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the Death of good King Henry the Sixt, &c. (on which Shakspeare's Third Part of King Henry VI. is founded) was entered at Stationers' Hall at the same time. They were printed, as I have before observed, separately, in 1594 and 1595; and reprinted together for the same person, T. Millington, in 1600* note.
The first thing that strikes us in this entry is, that the name of Shakspeare is not mentioned, nor is it in the early editions; nor, when the two plays were published in 1600, did the printer ascribe them to our author in the title-page, (though his reputation was then at the highest,) as surely as he would have done, had they been his compositions.
In a subsequent edition indeed of the same pieces, printed by one Pavier, without date, but in reality in 1619, after our great poet's death, the name of Shakspeare appears; but this was a bookseller's trick, founded upon our author's celebrity; on his having new-modelled these plays; and on the proprietors of the Globe and Blackfriars' theatre not having published Shakspeare's Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. The very same deception was practised with respect to King John. The old play (written perhaps by the same person who was the author of The Contention of the Two famous Houses, &c.) was printed in 1591, like that piece, anonymously. In 1611, (Shakspeare's King John,
founded on the same story, having been probably often acted and admired,) the old piece in two parts was reprinted; and, in order to deceive the purchaser, was said in the title-page to be written by W. Sh. A subsequent printer in 1622 grew more bold, and affixed Shakspeare's name to it at full length.
It is observable that Millington, the bookseller, by whom The First Part of the Contention of the Two famous Houses, &c. was entered at Stationers' Hall, in 1593–4, and for whom that piece and The Tragedie of the Duke of York, &c. were printed, was not the proprietor of any one of Shakspeare's undisputed plays, except King Henry V. of which he published a spurious copy, that, I think, must have been imperfectly taken down in short hand in the play-house.
The next observable circumstance, with respect to these two quarto plays, is, that they are said, in their title-pages, to have been “sundry times acted by the earle of Pembrooke his servantes.” Titus Andronicus and The old Taming of a Shrew, were acted by the same company of comedians; but not one of our author's plays is said, in its title-page, to have been acted by any but the Lord Chamberlain's or the Queen's, or King's servants* note
. This circumstance, alone, in my opinion, might almost decide the question.
This much appears on the first superficial view of these pieces;
but the passage quoted by Mr. Tyrwhitt from an old pamphlet, entitled
Greene's Groatsworth of Witte, &c. affords a still more decisive
support to the hypothesis that I am endeavouring to maintain;
which, indeed, that pamphlet first suggested to me. As this
passage is the chief hinge of my argument, though it has already
been printed in a preceding page, it is necessary to lay it again
before the reader.—“Yes,” says the writer, Robert Greene, (addressing
himself, as Mr. Tyrwhitt conjectures with great probability,
to his poetical friend, George Peele,) “trust them [the
players] not; for there is an upstart crowe beautified with our
feathers, that with his tygres heart wrapt in a player's hide
supposes hee is as well able to bombaste out a blank verse as the
best of you; and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is, in his
own conceit, the only Shake-scene in a country.”—“O tyger's
-- 571 --
heart, wrapt in a woman's hide!” is a line of the old quarto play,
entitled The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses, &c.
That Shakspeare was here alluded to, cannot, I think, be
doubted. But what does the writer mean by calling him “a
crow beautified with our feathers?” My solution is, that Greene
and Peele were the joint authors of the two quarto plays, entitled
The first part of the Contention of the Two famous Houses of
Yorke and Lancaster, &c. and The true Tragedie of Richarde
Duke of Yorke, &c. or that Greene was the author of one, and
Peele of the other. Greene's pamphlet, from whence the foregoing
passage is extracted, was written recently before his death,
which happened in September, 1592. How long he and Peele
had been dramatick writers, is not precisely ascertained. Peele
took the degree of Master of Arts at Oxford, in 1579: Greene
took the same degree in Cambridge, in 1583. Each of them has
left four or five plays, and they wrote several others, which have
not been published. The earliest of Peele's printed pieces, The
Arraignment of Paris, appeared in 1584; and one of Greene's
pamphlets was printed in 1583. Between that year and 1591 it
is highly probable that the two plays in question were written.
I suspect they were produced in 1588 or 1589. We have undoubted
proofs that Shakspeare was not above working on the
materials of other men. His Taming of the Shrew, his King
John, and other plays, render any arguments on that point unnecessary.
Having therefore, probably not long before the year
1592, when Greene wrote his Dying Exhortation to a Friend,
new-modelled and amplified these two pieces, and produced on
the stage what, in the folio edition of his works, are called The
Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. and having acquired
considerable reputation by them, Greene could not conceal the
mortification that he felt at his own fame and that of his associate,
both of them old and admired play-wrights, being eclipsed by a
new upstart writer, (for so he calls our great poet,) who had then
first, perhaps, attracted the notice of the publick by exhibiting
two plays, formed upon old dramas written by them, considerably
enlarged and improved. He therefore, in direct terms, charges
him with having acted like the crow in the fable, beautified himself
with their feathers; in other words, with having acquired
fame furtivis coloribus, by new-modelling a work originally produced
by them, and wishing to depreciate our author, he very
naturally quotes a line from one of the pieces which Shakspeare
had thus re-written; a proceeding which the authors of the
original plays considered as an invasion both of their literary property
and character. This line, with many others, Shakspeare
adopted without any alteration. The very term that Greene uses
—“to bombast out a blank verse,” exactly corresponds with what
has been now suggested. This new poet, says he, knows as well
as any man how to amplify and swell out a blank verse. Bumbast
-- 572 --
was a soft stuff of a loose texture, by which garments were rendered
more swelling and protuberant.
Several years after the death of Boiardo, Francesco Berni undertook
to new-versify Boiardo's poem, entitled Orlando Innamorato.
“Berni (as Baretti observes) was not satisfied with merely
making the versification of that poem better; he interspersed it
with many stanzas of his own, and changed almost all the beginnings
of the cantos, introducing each of them with some moral
reflection arising from the canto foregoing.” What Berni did
to Boiardo's poem after the death of its author, and more, I suppose
Shakspeare to have done to The First Part of the Contention
of the Two Mouses of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. and The
true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c. in the life time
of Greene and Peele, their literary parents; and this Rifacimento
(as the Italians call it) of these two plays I suppose to have been
executed by Shakspeare, and exhibited at the Globe or Blackfriars
theatre, in the year 1591.
I have said Shakspeare did what Berni did, and more. He
did not content himself with writing new beginnings to the acts;
he new-versified, he new-modelled, he transposed many of the
parts, and greatly amplified and improved the whole. Several
lines, however, and even whole speeches which he thought sufficiently
polished, he accepted, and introduced into his own work,
without any, or with very slight, alterations.
In the present edition, all those lines which he adopted without
any alteration, are printed in the usual manner; those speeches
which he altered or expanded, are distinguished by inverted
commas; and to all the lines entirely composed by himself, asterisks
are prefixed. The total number of lines in our author's
Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. is Six Thousand and
Forty-three: of these, as I conceive, 1771 lines were written by
some author or authors who preceded Shakspeare; 2373 were
formed by him on the foundation laid by his predecessors; and
1899 lines were entirely his own composition.
That the reader may have the whole of the subject before him,
I shall here transcribe the fourth scene of the fourth Act of The
Third Part of King Henry VI. (which happens to be a short one,)
together with the corresponding scene in the original play; and
also a speech of Queen Margaret, in the fifth Act, with the
original speech on which it is formed. The first specimen will
serve to show the method taken by Shakspeare, where he only
new-polished the language of the old play, rejecting some part of
the dialogue, and making some slight additions to the part which
he retained; the second is a striking proof of his facility and
vigour of composition, which has happily expanded a thought
comprized originally in a very short speech, into thirty-seven
lines, none of which appear feeble or superfluous.
-- 573 --
The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c. Sign. F. 4. edit. 1600.
Enter the Queene, and the Lord Rivers.
Riv.
Tell me, good madam,
Why is your grace so passionate of late.
Queene.
Why brother Rivers, heare you not the news
Of that success king Edward had of late?
Riv.
What? losse of some pitcht battaile against Warwick?
Tush; fear not, fair queen, but cast these cares aside.
King Edwards noble minde his honours doth display;
And Warwicke may lose, though then he got the day.
Queene.
If that were all, my griefes were at an end;
But greater troubles will, I feare, befall.
Riv.
What? is he taken prisoner by the foe,
To the danger of his royal person then?
Queene.
I, there's my griefe; king Edward is surprisde,
And led away as prisoner unto Yorke.
Riv.
The newes is passing strange, I must confesse;
Yet comfort yourselfe, for Edward hath more friends
Than Lancaster at this time must perceive,—
That some will set him in his throne againe.
Queene.
God grant they may! but gentle brother, come,
And let me leane upon thine arm a while,
Until I come unto the sanctuarie;
There to preserve the fruit within my womb,
King Edwards seed, true heir to Englands crowne.
[Exeunt.The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c. Sign. G. 4. edit. 1600.
Enter the Queene, Prince Edward, Oxford, Somerset, with drumme and souldiers.
Queen.
Welcome to England, my loving friends of France;
And welcome Somerset and Oxford too.
Once more have we spread our sailes abroad;
And though our tackling be almost consumde,
And Warwicke as our main-mast overthrowne,
Yet, warlike lordes, raise you that sturdie post,
That bears the sailes to bring us unto rest;
And Ned and I, as willing pilots should,
For once with careful mindes guide on the sterne,
To bear us thorough that dangerous gulfe,
That heretofore hath swallowed up our friendes. Anne is rightly represented
as the widow of the Prince of Wales, and the youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick:
“Which done, God take king Edward to his mercy,
“And leave the world to me to bustle in.
“For then I'll marry Warwick's youngest daughter;
“What though I kill'd her husband, and her father,” &c.
i. e. Edward Prince of Wales, and King Henry VI.
King Richard III, Act I. Sc. I.
I have said that certain passages in The Second and Third Part
of King Henry VI. are ascertained to be Shakspeare's by a peculiar
phraseology. This peculiar phraseology, without a single exception,
distinguishes such parts of these plays as are found in
the folio, and not in the elder quarto dramas, of which the phraseology,
as well as the versification, is of a different colour.
This observation applies not only to the new original matter produced
-- 586 --
by Shakspeare, but to his alteration of the old. Our author
in his undoubted compositions has fallen into an inaccuracy,
of which I do not recollect a similar instance in the works of any
other dramatist. When he has occasion to quote the same paper
twice, (not from memory, but verbatim,) from negligence he
does not always attend to the words of the paper which he has
occasion to quote, but makes one of the persons of the drama
recite them with variations, though he holds the very paper
quoted before his eyes. Thus, in All's Well that Ends Well,
Act V. Sc. III. Helena says:
“&lblank; here's your letter: This it says:
“When from my finger you can get this ring,
“And are by me with child,”—
Yet, as I have observed in vol. xi. p. 420, n. 6. Helena in
Act III. Sc. II. reads this very letter aloud, and there the words
are different, and in plain prose: “When thou canst get the
ring from my finger, which never shall come off, and show me
a child begotten of thy body,” &c. In like manner, in the first
scene of The Second Part of King Henry VI. Suffolk presents to
the Duke of Gloster, protector of the realm, the articles of
peace concluded between France and England. The protector
begins to read the articles, but when he has proceeded no further
than these words,—“Item, that the dutchy of Anjou and the
county of Maine shall be released and delivered to the king her
father,”—he is suddenly taken ill, and rendered incapable of proceeding:
on which the Bishop of Winchester is called upon to
read the remainder of the paper. He accordingly reads the
whole of the article, of which the Duke of Gloster had only read
a part: “Item, It is further agreed between them, that the dutchies
of Anjou and Maine shall be released and delivered over to the
king her father, and she sent,” &c. Now though Maine in our
old chronicles is sometimes called a county, and sometimes a
dutchy, yet words cannot change their form under the eyes of
two readers: nor do they in the original play, entitled The First
Part of the Contention of the Two Houses, &c. for there the
article as recited by the protector corresponds with that recited by
the Bishop, without the most minute variation. “Item, It is further
agreed between them, that the dutchies of Anjou and of Maine
shall be released and delivered over to the king her father, and
she sent,” &c. Thus in the old play says the Duke, and so says
the Cardinal after him. This one circumstance, in my apprehension,
is of such weight, that though it stood alone, it might
decide the present question. Our author has fallen into a similar
inaccuracy in the fourth scene of the same Act, where the Duke
of York recites from a paper the questions that had been put to
the Spirit, relative to the Duke of Suffolk, Somerset, &c* note.
-- 587 --
Many minute marks of Shakspeare's hands may be traced
in such parts of the old plays as he has new-modelled. I at present
recollect one that must strike every reader who is conversant
with his writings. He very frequently uses adjectives adverbially;
and this kind of phraseology, if not peculiar to him, is found
more frequently in his writings than those of any of his contemporaries.
Thus—“I am myself indifferent honest;”—“as
dishonourable ragged as an old faced ancient;”—“equal ravenous;”
—“leaves them invisible;” &c*. In The true Tragedie
of the Duke of Yorke, &c. the King, having determined to marry
Lady Grey, injoins his brothers to use her honourably. But in
Shakspeare's play the words are,—“use her honourable.” So,
in Julius Cæsar:
“Young man, thou could'st not die more honourable.”
In like manner, in The Third Part of King Henry VI. we find
this line:
“Is either slain, or wounded dangerous.”
but in the old play the words are—“wounded dangerously.”
In the same play the word handkerchief is used; but in the
corresponding scene in The Third Part of King Henry VI. (p. 406,)
Shakspeare has substituted the northern term napkin, which
occurs so often in his works, in its room* note.
The next circumstance to which I wish to call the attention of
those who do not think the present investigation wholly incurious,
is, the Transpositions that are found in these plays. In the preceding
notes I have frequently observed that not only several lines,
but sometimes whole scenes† note, were transposed by Shakspeare.
In p. 405, a Messenger, giving an account of the death of
the Duke of York, says:
“Environed he was with many foes;
“And stood against them, as the hope of Troy
“Against the Greeks, that would have enter'd Troy.
“But Hercules himself must yield to odds &lblank;;”
When this passage was printed, not finding any trace of the
last three lines in the corresponding part of the old play, I marked
them inadvertently as Shakspeare's original composition in my
former edition; but I afterwards found that he had borrowed them
from a subsequent scene on a quite different subject, in which
Henry, taking leave of Warwick, says to him—
“Farewell my Hector, and my Troy's true hope!”
and the last line, “But Hercules,” &c. is spoken by Warwick,
-- 588 --
near the conclusion of the piece, after he is mortally wounded
in the battle of Barnet.
So, in The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, &c. after
the Duke has slain Clifford, he says—
“Now, Lancaster, sit sure:—thy sinews shrink.”
Shakspeare has not made use of that line in that place, but
availed himself of it afterwards, where Edward brings forth Warwick
wounded; King Henry VI. Part III. Act V. Sc. II.:
“Now, Montague, sit fast: I seek for thee,” &c.
Many other transpositions may be traced in these plays, to
which I shall only refer in a note* note.
Such transpositions as I have noticed, could never have arisen
from any carelessness or inaccuracy of transcribers or copyists;
and therefore are to be added to the many other circumstances
which prove that The Second and Third Parts of K. Henry VI.
as exhibited in the folio, were formed from the materials of a
preceding writer.
It is also observable, that many lines are repeated in Shakspeare's
Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. but no such repetitions
are found in the old quarto plays. The repetition undoubtedly
arose from Shakspeare's not always following his original
strictly, but introducing expressions which had struck him in other
parts of the old plays; and afterwards, forgetting that he had
before used such expressions, he suffered them to remain in their
original places also.
Another proof that Shakspeare was not the author of The
Contention of the Two Houses, &c. is furnished by the inconsistencies
into which he has fallen, by sometimes adhering to, and
sometimes deviating from, his original: an inaccuracy which may
be sometimes observed in his undisputed plays.
One of the most remarkable instances of this kind of inconsistency
is found in The Second Part of King Henry VI. p. 306,
where he makes Henry say:
“I'll send some holy bishop to intreat,” &c.
a circumstance which he took from Holinshed's Chronicle;
whereas in the old play no mention is made of a bishop on this
occasion. The King there says, he will himself come and parley
with the rebels, and in the mean time he orders Clifford and
Buckingham to gather an army. In a subsequent scene, however,
Shakspeare forgot the new matter which he had introduced
in the former; and Clifford and Buckingham only parley with
Cade, &c. conformably to the old play.
In Romeo and Juliet he has fallen into a similar inaccuracy.
In the poem on which that tragedy is founded, Romeo, in his
-- 589 --
interview with the Friar, after sentence of banishment has been
pronounced against him, is described as passionately lamenting
his fate in the following terms:
“First nature did he blame, the author of his life,
“In which his joys had been so scant, and sorrows aye so rife;
“The time and place of birth he fiercely did reprove;
“He cryed out with open mouth against the stars above.
“On fortune eke he rail'd,” &c.
The Friar afterwards reproves him for want of patience. In
forming the corresponding scene Shakspeare has omitted Romeo's
invective against his fate, but inadvertently copied the Friar's remonstrance
as it lay before him:
“Why rail'st thou on thy birth, the heaven, and earth?”
If the following should be considered as a trifling circumstance,
let it be remembered, that circumstances which, separately considered,
may appear unimportant, sometimes acquire strength, when
united to other proofs of more efficacy: in my opinion, however,
what I shall now mention, is a circumstance of considerable
weight. It is observable that the priest concerned with Eleanor
Cobham, Duchess of Glocester, in certain pretended operations of
magick, for which she was tried, is called by Hall, John Hum.
So is he named in The First Part of the Contention of the Two
Houses of Yorke, &c. the original, as I suppose, of The Second
Part of King Henry VI. Our author, probably thinking the name
harsh or ridiculous, softened it to Hume; and by that name this
priest is called in his play printed in folio. But in Holinshed he is
named Hun; and so undoubtedly, or perhaps for softness, Hune,
he would have been called in the original quarto play just mentioned,
if Shakspeare had been the author of it; for Holinshed
and not Hall was his guide, as I have shown incontestably in a note
on King Henry V. vol. xvii. p. 270, n. 4. But Hall was undoubtedly
the historian who had been consulted by the original writer of The
Contention of the Two Houses of Yorke and Lancaster; as appears
from his having taken a line from thence, “That Alexander
Iden, an esquire of Kent* note,” and from the scene in which Cardinal
Beaufort is exhibited on his death-bed. One part of the particular
description of the Cardinal's death and dying words, in the old
quarto play, is founded on a passage in Hall, which Holinshed,
though in general a servile copyist of the former chronicler, has
omitted. The passage is this: “Dr. John Baker, his pryvie counsailer
and hys chapellayn, wrote, that lying on his death-bed he
[Cardinal Beaufort] said these words: &mlquo;Why should I dye, havyng
so much ryches? If the whole realme would save my lyfe, I am
-- 590 --
able either by pollicie to get it, or by riches to bye it. Fye! will
not death be hyered, nor will money do nothynge?” From this
the writer of the old play formed these lines:
“O death, if thou wilt let me live
“But one whole year, I'll give thee as much gold
“As will purchase such another island.”
which Shakspeare new-modelled thus:
“If thou be'st death, I'll give thee England's treasure,
“Enough to purchase such another island,
“So thou wilt let me live, and feel no pain.”
If Shakspeare had been the author of The First Part of the Contention,
&c. finding in his Holinshed the name Hun, he would
either have preserved it, or softened it to Hune. Working on the
old play, where he found the name of Hum, which sounded ridiculous
to his ear, he changed it to Hume. But whoever the original
writer of the old play was, having used the name of Hum,
he must have formed his play on Hall's Chronicle, where alone
that name is found. Shakspeare therefore having made Holinshed,
and not Hall, his guide, could not have been the writer
of it.
It may be remarked, that by the alteration of this priest's name,
he has destroyed a rhyme intended by the author of the original
play, where Sir John begins a soliloquy with this jingling line:
“Now, Sir John Hum, no word but mum:
“Seal up your lips, for you must silent be.”
which Shakspeare has altered thus:
“&lblank; But how now, Sir John Hume?
“Seal up your lips, and give no words but mum.”
Lines rhyming in the middle and end, similar to that above
quoted, are often found in our old English plays, (previous to the
time of Shakspeare,) and are generally put into the mouths of
priests and friars.
It has already been observed, that in the original play on which
The Second Part of King Henry VI. is founded, “Abradas, the
Macedonian pirate,” is mentioned. This hero does not appear in
Shakspeare's new-modelled play, “Bargulus, the strong Illyrian
pirate,” being introduced in his room. Abradas is spoken of (as
Mr. Steevens has remarked) by Robert Greene, the very person
whom I suppose to have been one of the joint authors of the original
plays, in a pamphlet, entitled Penelope's Web, 1589:—Abradas,
the great Macedonean pirate, thought every one had a letter
of mart that bare sayles in the ocean.” Of this pirate or his
achievements, however celebrated he may have been, I have not
found the slightest trace in any book whatsoever, except that above
quoted: a singular circumstance, which appears to me strongly
to confirm my hypothesis on the present subject; and to support
my interpretation of Greene's words in his Groatsworth of Witte,
in a former part of the present disquisition.
-- 591 --
However this may be, there are certainly very good grounds for
believing that The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses
of York and Lancaster, &c. and The true Tragedie of Richard Duke
of Yorke, were written by the author or authors of the old King
John, printed in 1591.
In The true Tragedie, &c. we find the following lines:
“Let England be true within itself,
“We need not France, nor any alliance with her.”
The first of these lines is found, with a very minute variation,
in the old King John, where it runs thus:
“Let England live but true within itself &lblank;.”
Nor is this the only coincidence. In the deservedly admired
scene in which Cardinal Beaufort's death is represented, in the
original play, (as well as in Shakspeare's Second Part of King
Henry VI.) he is called upon to hold up his hand, as a proof of his
confidence in God:
“Lord Cardinal,
“If thou diest assured of heavenly blisse,
“Hold up thy hand, and make some sign to us.
[The Cardinal dies.
“O see, he dies, and makes no sign at all:
“O God, forgive his soule!”
I quote from the original play.—It is remarkable that a similar
proof is demanded in the old play of King John also, when that
king is expiring:
“Then, good my lord, if you forgive them all,
“Lift up your hand, in token you forgive.”
Again:
“&lblank; in token of thy faith,
“And signe thou diest the servant of the Lord,
“Lift up thy hand, that we may witnesse here
“Thou diest the servant of our Saviour Christ.—
“Now joy betide thy soul!”
This circumstance appears to me to add considerable support
to my conjecture.
One point only remains. It may be asked, if The First Part of
King Henry VI. was not written by Shakspeare, why did Heminge
and Condell print it with the rest of his works? The only way
that I can account for their having done so, is by supposing, either
that their memory at the end of thirty years was not accurate concerning
our author's pieces, as appears indeed evidently from their
omitting Troilus and Cressida, which was not recollected by them,
till the whole of the first folio, and even the table of contents,
(which is always the last work of the press,) had been printed; or,
that they imagined the insertion of this historical drama was necessary
to understanding the two pieces that follow it; or lastly, that
Shakspeare, for the advantage of his own theatre, having written a
few lines in The First Part of King Henry VI. after his own Second
-- 592 --
and Third Part had been played, they conceived this a sufficient
warrant for attributing it, along with the others, to him, in the general
collection of his works. If Shakspeare was the author of
any part of this play, perhaps the second and the following scenes
of the fourth Act were his; which are for the most part written in
rhyme, and appear to me somewhat of a different complexion from
the rest of the play. Nor is this the only instance of their proceeding
on this ground; for is it possible to conceive that they
could have any other reason for giving Titus Andronicus a place in
their edition of Shakspeare's works, than his having written twenty
or thirty lines in that piece, or having retouched a few verses of it; if indeed he did so much?
Shakspeare's referring in the Epilogue to King Henry V. which
was produced in 1599, to these three parts of King Henry VI. of
which the first, by whom soever it was written, appears from the
testimony of a contemporary to have been exhibited with great
applause* note; and the two latter having been, as I conceive, eight
years before new-modelled and almost re-written by our author,
we may be confident were performed with the most brilliant success;
his supplicating the favour of the audience to his new play
of King Henry V.: “for the sake” of these old and popular
dramas, which were so closely connected with it, and in the composition
of which, as they had for many years been exhibited, he
had so considerable a share; the connection between the last
scene of King Henry VI. and the first scene of King Richard III.
the Shaksperian diction, versification, and figures, by which The
Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. are distinguished;
“the easiness of expression and the fluency of numbers,” which,
it is acknowledged, are found here, and were possessed by no
other author of that age; all these circumstances are accounted
for by the theory now stated, and all objections† note that have been
founded upon them, in my apprehension, vanish away.
On the other hand, the entry on the Stationers' books of the
old play, entitled The First Part of the Contention of the Two
Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. without the name of the author;
that piece, and The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke,
&c. being printed in 1600, anonymously; their being founded
on the Chronicle of Hall, who was not Shakspeare's historian,
and represented by the servants of Lord Pembroke, by whom
none of his uncontested dramas were represented; the colour,
diction, and versification of these old plays, the various circumstances,
lines and speeches, that are found in them, and not in
our author's new-modification of them, as published in folio by
his original editors; the resemblances that have been noticed between
-- 593 --
his other works and such parts of these dramas as are only
exhibited in their folio edition; the discordances (in matters of
fact) between certain parts of the old plays printed in quarto,
and Shakspeare's undoubted performances: the transpositions
that he has made in these pieces; the repetitions; and the peculiar
Shaksperian inaccuracies, and phraseology, which may be
traced in the folio, and not in the old quarto plays; these and
other circumstances, which have been stated in the foregoing
pages, form, when united, such a body of argument and proofs,
in support of my hypothesis, as appears to me, (though I will not
venture to assert that “the probation bears no hinge or loop to
hang a doubt on,”) to lead directly to the door of truth.
It is observable that several portions of the English History
had been dramatized before the time of Shakspeare. Thus, we
have King John in two parts, by an anonymous writer; Edward I.
by George Peele; Edward II. by Christopher Marlowe; Edward
III. anonymous; Henry IV. containing the deposition of Richard
II. and the accession of Henry to the crown, anonymous* note Henry
V. and Richard III. both by anonymous authors† note. Is it
not then highly probable, that the whole of the story of
Henry VI. had also been brought upon the scene? and that the
first of the plays now in question, formerly (as I believe) called
The Historical Play of King Henry VI. and now named The First
Part of King Henry VI. as well as The First Part of the Contention
of the Two Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. and The
True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, (which three pieces
comprehend the entire reign of that King from his birth to his
death,) were the composition of some of the authors, who had
produced the historical dramas above enumerated?
In consequence of an hasty and inconsiderate opinion formed
by Mr. Pope, without any minute examination of the subject,
King John in two parts, printed in 1591, and The old Taming
of the Shrew, which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1594,
and printed in 1607, passed for half a century for the composition
of Shakspeare. Further inquiries have shown that they
were the productions of earlier writers; and perhaps a more profound
investigation of this subject than I have been able to
make, may hereafter prove decisively, that the first of the three
Henries printed in folio, and both the parts of The Whole Contention
of the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, as exhibited
in quarto, ought to be classed in the same predicament with the
two old plays above mentioned. For my own part, if it should ever
be thought proper to reprint the old dramas on which Shakspeare
founded some of his plays, which were published in two volumes
-- 594 --
a few years ago, I have no doubt that The First Part of the Contention
of the Two Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. and The
True Tragedie of the Duke of Yorke, &c. should be added to the
number.
Gildon somewhere says, that “in a conversation between Shakspeare
and Ben Jonson, Ben asked him the reason why he wrote
his historical plays.” Our author (we are told) replied, that
“finding the nation generally very ignorant of history, he wrote
them in order to instruct the people in that particular.” This
anecdote, like many other traditional stories, stands on a very
weak foundation; or, to speak more justly, it is certainly a fiction.
The malignant Ben does indeed, in his Devil's an Ass, 1616,
sneer at our author's historical pieces, which for twenty years preceding
had been in high reputation, and probably were then the
only historical dramas that had possession of the theatre; but
from the list above given, it is clear that Shakspeare was not the
first who dramatized our old chronicles; and that the principal
events of the English History were familiar to the ears of his
audience, before he commenced a writer for the stage* note
: though
-- 595 --
undoubtedly at this day, whatever knowledge of our annals is dispersed
among the people, is in a great measure derived from the
frequent exhibition of our author's historical plays.
He certainly did not consider writing on fables that had already
been formed into dramas, as any derogation from his fame; if
indeed fame was ever an object of his thoughts. We know that
plays on the subjects of Measure for Measure, The Taming of the
Shrew, The Merchant of Venice, King John, King Richard II.
King Henry IV. King Henry V. King Richard III. King Lear,
Antony and Cleopatra, and, I strongly suspect, on those of
Hamlet, Timon of Athens, and Julius Cæsar* note, existed before he
commenced a dramatick author; and perhaps in process of time
it may be found, that many of the fables of his other plays also
had been unskilfully treated, and produced upon the stage, by
preceding writers.
Such are the only lights that I am able to throw on this very
dark subject. The arguments which I have stated have entirely
satisfied my own mind; whether they are entitled to bring conviction
to the minds of others, I shall not presume to determine.
I produce them, however, with the more confidence, as they
have the approbation of one who has given such decisive proofs
of his taste and knowledge, by ascertaining the extent of Shakspeare's
learning, that I have no doubt his thoughts on the present
question also, will have that weight with the publick to
which they undoubtedly entitled. It is almost unnecessary to
add, that I mean my friend Dr. Farmer; who many years ago
-- 596 --
delivered it as his opinion, that these plays were not written originally
by Shakspeare* note
.
Malone.
| Previous section
|
