Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

have mentioned that I do not believe The First Part of King Henry VI. to have been the compofition of Shakspeare; or that at most he wrote but one or two scenes in it. It is unneceffary here to repeat the circumftances on which that opinion is founded. Not being Shakspeare's play, (as I conceive,) at. whatever time it might have been firft exhibited, it does not interfere with the fuppofition already ftated, that he had not produced any dramatick piece before 1590.

The First Part of King Henry VI. which, I imagine, was formerly known by the name of The hiftorical Play of King Henry VI. had, I fufpect, been a very popular piece for fome years before 1592, and perhaps was firft exhibited in 1588 or in 1589. Nafhe, in a tract entitled Pierce Pennileffe his Supplication to the Devill, which was firft publifhed in 1592,' exprefsly mentions one of the characters in it, John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, who dies in the fourth act of the piece, and who is not, I believe, introduced in any other play of that time. "How" (fays he) "would it have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to think that after he had lain two hundred years in his

Pierce Pennileffe his Supplication, &c. was first published in that year, being entered for the first time on the Stationers' books by Richard Jones, Aug. 1592. There was a fecond edition in the fame year, printed by Abell Jeffes for John Bufbie.

• Thus Talbot is defcribed in The First Part of King Henry VI. A& I. fc. iii:

"Here, faid they, is the terror of the French." Again, in A& V. fc. i:

"Is Talbot flain, the Frenchman's only fcourge,
"Your kingdom's terror ?”

tomb, he fhould triumph again on the flage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at leaft, (at feveral times,) who, in the tragedian that reprefents his person, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding?"

In the Differtation above referred to, I have endeavoured to prove that this play was written neither by Shakspeare, nor by the author or authors of the two other plays formed on a fubfequent period of the reign of Henry the Sixth. By whom it was written, it is now, I fear, impoffible to afcertain. It was not entered on the Stationers' books nor printed till the year 1623, when it was registered with Shakspeare's undifputed plays by the editors of the firft folio, and improperly entitled The Third Part of King Henry VI. In one fense it might be called fo, for two plays on the fubject of that reign had been printed before. But confidering the hiftory of that king, and the period of time which the piece comprehends, it ought to have been called, what in fact it is, The First Part of King Henry VI.

At this diftance of time it is impoffible to afcertain on what principle it was that our author's friends, Heminge and Condell, admitted The First Part of King Henry VI. into their volume: but I fufpect they gave it a place as a neceffary introduction to the two other parts, and because Shakspeare had made fome flight alterations, and written a few new lines in it.

Titus Andronicus, as well as The First Part of King Henry VI. may be referred to the year 1589, or to an earlier period; but not being in the preen t edition admitted into the regular feries of our

1

author's dramas, I have not given it a place in the preceding table of his plays. In a note prefixed to that play, which, may be found in Vol. XIX. P. 249, & feq. I have declared my opinion that Andronicus was not written by Shakspeare, or that at moft a very few lines in it were written by him;' and have ftated the reafons on which that opinion is founded. From Ben Jonfon's Induction to Bartholomew Fair, 1614, we learn that this piece had been exhibited on the ftage twenty-five or thirty years before, that is, at the loweft computation, in 1589; or, taking a middle period, (which is perhaps more just,) in 1587. "A booke entitled a Noble Roman Hiftory of Titus Andronicus," (without any author's name,) was entered at Stationers' Hall by John Danter, Feb. 6, 1593-4. This was undoubtedly the play, as it was printed in that year, according to Langbaine, who alone appears to have feen the first edition, and acted by the fervants of the earls of Pembroke, Derby, and Suffex. Of this play there was a second edition in quarto in 1611, in the title page of which neither the name of Shakspeare, (though he was in the zenith of his reputation,) nor of any author, is found, and therefore we may prefume that the title-page of the first edition alfo (like the entry on the Stationers' books) was anonymous. Marlowe's King Edward II. and fome other old plays were performed by the fervants of the earl of Pembroke, by whom not one of Shakspeare's undifputed dramas was exhibited.

1

2. SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF K. HENRY VI.

[blocks in formation]

In a Differtation annexed to these plays, I have endeavoured to prove that they were not written originally by Shakspeare, but formed by him on two preceding dramas, one of which is entitled The first part of the Contention of the two famous houfes of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. and the other The true tragedie of Richard duke of Yorke, &c. My principal object in that differtation was, to fhew from various circumftances that thofe two old plays, which were printed in 1600, were written by fome writer or writers who preceded Shakspeare, and moulded by him, with many alterations and additions, into the shape in which they at prefent appear in his works under the titles of The Second and Third Part of K. Henry VI; and if I have proved that point, I have obtained my end. I ventured,

however, to go fomewhat further, and to hazard a conjecture concerning the perfons by whom they were compofed: but this was not at all material to my principal argument, which, whether my conjectures on that head were well or ill founded, will remain the fame.

The paffage which has been already quoted from Greene's pamphlet, led me to fufpect that these old plays were the production of either him, or Peele, or both of them. I too haftily fuppofed that the words which have been printed in a former page,-"Yes, truft them not; for there is an upftart crow beautified with our feathers," &c. as they immediately followed a paragraph addressed to George Peele, were addreffed to him particularly; and confequently that the word our meant

Peele and Greene, the writer of the pamphlet: but thefe words manifeftly relate equally to the three perfons previoully addreffed, and allude to the theatrical compofitions of Marlowe, Lodge, Peele, and Greene; whether we confider the writer to lament in gencral that players avail themfelves of the labours of authors, and derive more profit from them than the authors themfelves, or fuppofe him to allude to fome particular dramatick performances, which had been originally compofed by himfelf or one of his friends, and thrown into a new form by fome other dramatift, who was also a player. The two old plays therefore on which The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. were formed, may have been written by any one or more of the authors above enumerated. Towards the end of the Effay I haye produced a paffage from the old King John, 1591, from which it appeared to me probable that the two elder dramas, which compichend the greater part of the reign of King Henry VI. were written by the author of King John, who ever he was; and fome circumflances which have lately ftruck me, confirm an opinion which I formerly hazarded, that Chriftopher Marlowe was the author of that play. A paffage in his hiftorical drama of King Edward II. which Dr. Farmer has pointed out to me fince the Differtation was printed, alfo inclines me to believe, with him, that Marlowe was the author of one, if not both, of the old dramas on which Shakspeare formed the two plays which in the firft folio edition. of his works are diftinguifhed by the titles of The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI.

Two lines in The Third Part of King Henry VI. have been produced as a decifive and incontro

« AnteriorContinuar »