INTRODUCTION.

The popularity of Shakespeare's “Richard the Third” must have been great, judging only from the various quarto editions which preceded the publication of it in the folio of 1623. It originally came out in 1597, without the name of the author: it was reprinted in 1598, with “by William Shake-speare” on the title-page, and again in 1602^{1 note}, all three impressions having been made for the same bookseller, Andrew Wise. On the 27th June, 1603, it was assigned to Mathew Lawe, as appears by an entry in the Stationers' Registers; accordingly, he published the fourth edition of it with the date of 1605: the fifth edition was printed for the same bookseller in 1613^{2 note}. This seems to have been the last time it came out in quarto, anterior to its appearance in the first folio^{3 note}; but after that date, three other quarto impressions are known, viz. in 1624, 1629, and 1634, and it is remarkable that these were all mere reprints of the earlier quartos, not one of them including any of the passages which the player-editors of the folio first inserted in their volume. This fact might show that the publishers of the later quartos did not know that there were any material variations between the earlier quartos and the folio, that they did not think them of importance, or that the projectors of the folio were considered to have some species of copyright in the additions. These additions, extending in one instance to more than fifty lines, are pointed out in our notes. It will also be found that more than one speech in the folio is unintelligible without aid from the quartos;

and for some other characteristic omissions, particularly for one in Act iv. sc. 2, it is not possible to account.

With respect to the additions in the folio of 1623, we have no means of ascertaining whether they formed part of the original play. Steevens was of opinion that the quarto, 1597, contained a better text than the folio: such is not our opinion; for though the quarto sets right several doubtful matters, it is not well printed, even for a production of that day, and bears marks of having been brought out in haste, and from an imperfect manuscript. The copy of the “history” in the folio of 1623 was in some places a reprint of the quarto, 1602, as several obvious errors of the press are repeated, right for “fight,” helps for “helms,” &c. For the additions, a manuscript was no doubt employed; and the variations in some scenes, particularly near the middle of the play, are so numerous, and the corrections so frequent, that it is probable a transcript belonging to the theatre was there consulted. Our text is that of the folio, with due notice of all the chief variations.

The earliest entry in the Stationers' Registers relating to Shakespeare's “Richard the Third,” is in these terms:—

“20 Oct. 1597
Andrew Wise] The Tragedie of Kinge Richard the Third, with the death of the Duke of Clarence.”

This memorandum, probably, immediately preceded the publication of the quarto, 1597. The only other entry relating to “Richard the Third” we have already mentioned, and the exact words of it may be seen in a note to our Introduction to “Richard the Second,” Vol. iv. p. 108.

It is certain that there was a historical drama upon some of the events of the reign of Richard III. anterior to that of Shakespeare. T. Warton quoted Sir John Harington's “Apologie for Poetry,” prefixed to his translation of Ariosto in 1591, respecting a tragedy of “Richard the Third,” acted at St. John's, Cambridge, which would “have moved Phalaris, the tyrant, and terrified all tyrannous-minded men;” and Steevens adduced Heywood's “Apology for Actors^{4 note},” 1612, to the same effect, without apparently being aware that Heywood was professedly only repeating the words of Harington. Both those authors, however, referred to a Latin drama on the story of Richard III., written by Dr. Legge, and acted at Cambridge before 1583. Steevens followed up his quotation from Heywood by the copy of an entry in the Stationers' Registers, dated June 19, 1594, relating to an English play on the same subject.

When Steevens wrote, and for many years afterwards, it was not known that such a drama had ever been printed; but in 1821 Boswell reprinted a large fragment of it (with many errors) from a copy wanting the commencement. A perfect copy of this very rare play is in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, and from it we transcribe the following title-page:—

“The True Tragedie of Richard the third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore's wife, an example for all wicked women. And lastly, the coniunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. London Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by William Barley, at his shop in Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore. 1594.”

This title-page so nearly corresponds with the entry in the Stationers' Registers^{5 note}, as to leave no doubt that the latter referred to the former. The piece itself, as a literary composition, deserves little remark, but as a drama it possesses several peculiar features. It is in some respects unlike any relic of the kind, and was evidently written several years before it came from Creede's press. It opens with a singular dialogue between Truth and Poetry:—

Hence Truth proceeds with a sort of argument of the play; but before the Induction begins, the ghost of George, Duke of Clarence, had passed over the stage, delivering two lines as he went, which we give precisely as in the original copy now before us:—

The drama itself afterwards opens with a scene representing the death of Edward IV., and the whole story is thenceforward most inartificially and clumsily conducted, with a total disregard of dates, facts, and places, by characters imperfectly drawn and ill sustained. Shore's wife plays a conspicuous part; and the tragedy does not finish with the battle of Bosworth Field, but is carried on subsequently, although the plot is clearly at an end. The conclusion is quite as remarkable as the commencement. After the death of Richard, Report (a personification like some of those in the old Moralities) enters, and holds a dialogue with a Page, to inform the audience of certain matters not exhibited; and after a long scene between Richmond, the Queen mother, Princess Elizabeth, &c., two Messengers enter, and, mixing with the personages of the play, detail the succession of events and of monarchs from the death of Richard until the accession of Elizabeth. The Queen mother then comes forward, and pronounces an elaborate panegyric upon Elizabeth, ending with these lines:—

As in this sort of epilogue no allusion is made to the Spanish Armada, though other public events of less prominence are touched upon, we may perhaps infer that the drama was written before the year 1588.

The style in which it is composed also deserves observation: it is partly in prose, partly in heavy blank-verse, (such as was penned before Marlowe had introduced his improvements, and Shakespeare had adopted and advanced them) partly in ten-syllable rhyming couplets, and stanzas, and partly in the long fourteen-syllable metre, which seems to have been popular even before prose was employed upon our stage. In every point of view it may be asserted, that few more curious dramatic relics exist in our language. It is perhaps the most ancient printed specimen of composition for a public theatre, of which the subject was derived from English history.

Boswell asserts that “The True Tragedy of Richard the Third” had “evidently been used and read by Shakespeare,” but we cannot trace any resemblances, but such as were probably purely accidental, and are merely trivial. Two persons could hardly take up the same period of our annals, as the ground-work of a drama, without some coincidences; but there is no point, either in the conduct of the plot or in the language in which it is clothed, where our great dramatist does not show his measureless superiority. The portion of the story in which the two plays make the nearest approach to

each other, is just before the murder of the princes, where Richard strangely takes a page into his confidence respecting the fittest agent for the purpose. ^note

It is not to be concluded, because the title-page of “The True Tragedy of Richard the Third” expresses that it was acted “by the Queen's Majesty's Players,” that it was the association to which Shakespeare belonged, and which became “the King's Players” after James I. ascended the throne. In 1583, the Queen selected a company from the theatrical servants of several of her nobility; (Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. 254;) and in 1590 there were two companies, called “her Majesty's Players,” one under the management of Laneham, and the other of Laurence Dutton^{6 note}. By one of these companies “The True Tragedy of Richard the Third” must have been performed. Until the death of Elizabeth, the association to which Shakespeare was attached was usually called “the Lord Chamberlain's Servants.”

In the “Memoirs of Edward Alleyn,” p. 121, it is shown that Henslowe's company, subsequent to 1599, was either in possession of a play upon the story of Richard III., or that some of the poets he employed were engaged upon such a drama. From the sketch of five scenes, there inserted, we may judge that it was a distinct performance from “The True Tragedy of Richard the Third.” By an entry in Henslowe's Diary, dated 22d June, 1602, we learn that Ben Jonson received 10l. in earnest of a play called “Richard Crookback,” and for certain additions he was to make to Kyd's Spanish Tragedy. Considering the success of Shakespeare's “Richard the Third,” and the active contention, at certain periods, between the company to which Shakespeare belonged, and that under the management of Henslowe, it may be looked upon as singular, that the latter should have been without a drama on that portion of English history until after 1599; and it is certainly not less singular, that as late as 1602 Ben Jonson should have been occupied in writing a new play upon the subject. Possibly, about that date Shakespeare's “Richard the Third” had been revived with the additions; and hence the employment of Jonson on a rival drama, and the publication of the third edition of Shakespeare's tragedy after an interval of four years.

Malone was of opinion that Shakespeare wrote “Richard the Third” in 1593, but he did not adduce a particle of evidence, and none in fact exists. We should be disposed to place it somewhat nearer the time of publication.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ. KING EDWARD THE FOURTH. EDWARD, Prince of Wales; Son to the King. RICHARD, Duke of York; Son to the King. GEORGE, Duke of Clarence; Brother to the King. RICHARD, Duke of Gloster; Brother to the King. A young Son of Clarence. HENRY, Earl of Richmond. CARDINAL BOUCHIER [Cardinal Bourchier], Archbishop of Canterbury. THOMAS ROTHERHAM, Archbishop of York. JOHN MORTON, Bishop of Ely. DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM. DUKE OF NORFOLK. EARL OF SURREY, his Son. EARL RIVERS, Brother to King Edward's Queen: MARQUESS OF DORSET, [Marquis of Dorset], Son of King Edward's Queen. LORD GREY, Son of King Edward's Queen. EARL OF OXFORD. LORD HASTINGS. LORD STANLEY. LORD LOVEL. SIR THOMAS VAUGHAN. SIR RICHARD RATCLIFF. SIR WILLIAM CATESBY. SIR JAMES TYRREL. SIR JAMES BLOUNT. SIR WALTER HERBERT. SIR ROBERT BRAKENBURY, Lieutenant of the Tower. CHRISTOPHER URSWICK, a Priest. Another Priest. Lord Mayor of London. Sheriff of Wiltshire. ELIZABETH [Lady Grey], Queen of King Edward IV. MARGARET, Widow of King Henry VI. DUCHESS OF YORK, Mother to King Edward IV., Clarence, and Gloster. LADY ANNE, Widow of Edward Prince of Wales. A young Daughter of Clarence [Daughter of Clarence]. Lords, and other Attendants; two Gentlemen, a Pursuivant, Scrivener, Citizens, Murderers, Messengers, Ghosts, Soldiers, &c. [Gentleman 1], [Murderer 1], [Murderer 2], [Citizen 1], [Citizen 2], [Citizen 3], [Page], [Messenger], [Messenger 2], [Messenger 3], [Messenger 4], [Ghost of Prince Edward], [Ghost of King Henry], [Ghost of Clarence], [Ghost of Rivers], [Ghost of Grey], [Ghost of Vaughan], [Ghost of Hastings], [Ghosts of Two Young Princes], [Ghost of Queen Anne], [Ghost of Buckingham] SCENE, England.

LIFE AND DEATH OF KING RICHARD III.

Next section