INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS,

HISTORY OF THE THIRD PART OF HENRY VI. IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, AND AS IMPROVED VIEW OF THE QUESTION AS TO SHAKESPEARE'S AUTHORSHIP OF THE THREE PARTS-SUBSTANCE OF MALONE'S ARGUMENTS-THEIR WEAKNESS SHOWN-STATE OF THE TEXT OF THE THREE PARTS, ETC.

TH

HIS play, like its two preceding parts, was first printed in full, in its present form, in the folio of 1623; but, like the second part, it is the enlargement and improvement of a much shorter play, which had been printed twenty-eight years before, and which, with Johnson, Knight, and all the older and many later editors and commentators, I think was undoubtedly one of Shakespeare's earlier works,-while Malone, followed by Hallam, Collier, and many recent English critics, maintains it to have been the work of Marlowe, or Greene, or some other of Shakespeare's immediate dramatic predecessors. The first edition of the old play was printed in 1595, entitled "The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of the good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants. Printed at London by P. S. for Thomas Millington." This first edition has now become one of the rarest of English bibliographical curiosities, there being but one known copy of it, which formerly belonged to the editor Chalmers, and, until Collier's edition, had never been seen by any one of the commentators. This was reprinted, by the same publisher, in 1600, as the second part of the "Contention of the two Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster;" and again, some years after, a re-impression of both plays, without date, (but supposed to be about 1619,) was issued, "as newly corrected and enlarged." To this was added in the title, for the first time, "Written by William Shakespeare;" no author's name having before been prefixed to either of the histories. The two parts of the "Contention" were reprinted by Stevens, from this last edition, with literal accuracy, in his excellent and now somewhat scarce reprint of the original quartos. These originals of the second and third parts of HENRY VI. are also reprinted by Knight, in his Pictorial edition; who has facilitated the comparison of them with the enlarged plays, by modernizing the old orthography, correcting the misprints, and dividing the plays into acts and scenes, which are wanting in the old editions and Stevens's reprint.

The alterations and enlargements of the old play, which is the groundwork of this third part, are of the same kind with those of the former part, already noticed. They, however, differ from them in this,—that the alterations of the former part are carried regularly through the play, the corrections and insertions pervading the whole, without much of entirely original additions, while, in this concluding part, larger portions of the older drama are preserved untouched; but there are also larger omissions of passages, and much larger insertions of original matter. There are also, in the last two acts, some slight variations in the details of the conduct of the story, though not at all varying the incidents.

I have already presented (see Introductory Remarks to HENRY VI., Parts I. and II.) my general views of the poetic and dramatic characters of this "dramatic trilogy," (as the German critics delight to style it,) and of the strong evidence of their having been, in all their forms, the productions of Shakespeare alone, the positive external testimony being supported by the equally strong indications of authorship afforded by the spirit, power of characterization and narrative, and by the style and versification,-when we regard the author not as the matured self-formed great Poet, but as when first essaying his half-developed powers in the historic drama. We say his half-developed powers; for, though the first notices of these plays are found in the Stationers' Register, in 1593, yet the title-pages of the first editions indicate that they had been some time on the stage, and the language and orthography are of that cast which prevailed in the Poet's younger days. The first part, as we find it in the folio, is, in my judgment, the one least amplified and corrected from its primitive form, which is now lost,-though I think it must have been retouched and improved with the others, after the production of HENRY IV. and V., and RICHARD III., had made it an important link in the chain of dramatized English history. The two parts of the 'Contention," as at first separately printed, seem to me as evidently Shakespeare's own original conceptions of the plays he afterwards improved and amplified, as the lately discovered "Hamlet," of 1603, does of the HAMLET afterwards (as the next editions state) "enlarged to almost as much again as it was," and filled with deeper feeling, breathed forth in nobler numbers. They were published at first without any author's name, like the old "King John," and other plays of the time, when the name of a young and unknown author could add nothing to the attraction of the piece. It was equally natural that afterwards, when that name had become familiar to every reader of poetry, and the plays themselves possessed greater interest by being a part of his splendid dramatic chronicle of the Wars of the Roses,—while in their revised shape they were jealously guarded from the press by the theatrical owners,-the old imperfect sketches should be reprinted by the original proprietors, bearing the author's name.

The additions and improvements of the second part, and of most of the third part, are more level to the style of the original groundwork than we find similar additions in several other dramas, where the interval between the original concoction and the revision had raised the author's style to a higher and bolder tone of thought, language, and rhythmical freedom. I should, therefore, pronounce these to have been, in the main, added before the production of HENRY IV. or RICHARD III. On the other hand, there are some passages-such as King Henry's ruminations while watching the battle, Gloster's soliloquy in the third act, and Margaret's speech before the battle of Tewkesbury-which breathe the spirit and the music of the Poet's maturity, and may have been added after the production of RICHARD III., with a view of more clearly harmonizing with that play the portion of the historic scenes most immediately connected with it. But, while the date of these several additions must be, in a great degree, conjectural, to me it seems self-evident, that they are all the workings out of the ideas of the same mind which put forth its unexercised strength with such irregular force and fertility, and occasional grandeur, in the two old rude plays of the "Contention." The death-scenes of Beaufort, of York, and of Clifford, and the character of the "Crookback,” as they all appear in the “Contention,” are alone sufficient to stamp the identity of their author with that of RICHARD III.

No doubt was entertained that these plays were Shakespeare's, and his alone, by the age which immediately succeeded their publication in the folio, nor by the succeeding critics and commentators, down to the middle of the last century. Since that period, when ingenious doubts have been raised, they have again received the attestation of Johnson, of Stevens, and of Knight, and other later critics in England, as well as of all the German translators or commentators,-as Schlegel, Ulrici, Tieck, etc.

Malone's denial of Shakespeare's authorship of the first part, and of the two original forms of the other parts, has the concurrence of a host of later English critics, most of them of no imposing authority, but including among them the greater name of Henry Hallam. Malone's arguments in support of his theory, to which nothing has since been added, cannot be more favourably and clearly stated than has been done by Mr Singer, who gives in his adherence to this opinion. The substance of Malone's dissertation, as it bears on the first part, which is denied to be Shakespeare's, in any sense or degree, is thus abridged by Singer:

"The diction, versification, and allusions in it, are all different from the diction, versification, and allusions of Shakespeare, and corresponding with those of Greene, Peele, Lodge, and Marlowe, and others who preceded him: there are more allusions to mythology, to classical authors, and to ancient and modern history, than are found in any one piece of Shakespeare's written on an English story: they are such as do not naturally rise out of the subject, but seem to be inserted merely to show the writer's learning. These allusions, and many particular expres sions, seem more likely to have been used by the authors already named than by Shakespeare.-He points out many of the allusions, and instances the words proditor and immanity, which are not to be found in any of the Poet's undisputed works.-The versification he thinks clearly of a different colour from that of Shakespeare's genuine dramas; while at the same time it resembles that of many of the plays produced before his time. The sense concludes or pauses almost uniformly at the end of every line; and the verse has scarcely ever a redundant sylla ble. He produces numerous instances from the works of Lodge, Peele, Greene, and others, of similar versification. "A passage in a pamphlet written by Thomas Nash, an intimate friend of Greene, Peele, Marlowe, etc., shows that the First Part of KING HENRY VI., had been on the stage before 1592; and his favourable mention of the piece may induce a belief that it was written by a friend of his. How would it have joyed brave Talbot, 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.'-Pierce Penniless his Supplication to the Devil, 1592.

"That this passage related to the old play of KING HENRY VI., or, as it is now called, the First Part of KING HENRY VI., can hardly 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.' Hollingshed, who was Shakespeare's guide, omits the passage in Hall, in which Talbot is thus described; and this is an additional proof that this play was not the production of our great Poet.

"There are other internal proofs of this :

"1. The author does not seem to have known precisely how old Henry VI. was at the time of his father's death. He supposed him to have the state of infancy before he lost his father, and even to have remembered some of his sayings. In the fourth act, scene 4, speaking of the famous Talbot, he says:

When I was young (as yet I am not old,)
I do remember how my father said,
A stouter champion never handled sword.

But Shakespeare knew that Henry VI. could not possibly remember any thing of his father:

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. scene 9.)
When I was crown'd I was but nine months old.

(King Henry VI. Part III. act i. scene 1.)

"The first of these passages is among the additions made by Shakespeare to the old play, according to Mr. Malone's hypothesis. The other passage does occur in the 'True Tragedie of Richard Duke of York;' and therefore it is natural to conclude that neither Shakespeare nor the author of that piece could have written the first part of KING HENRY VI.

"2. In act ii. scene 5, of this play, it is said that the earl of Cambridge raised an army against his sovereign. But Shakespeare, in his play of KING HENRY V. has represented the matter truly as it was: the earl being in that piece, (act ii.) condemned at Southampton for conspiring to assassinate Henry.

"3. The author of this play knew the true pronunciation of the word Hecate, as it is used by the Roman writers:I speak not to that railing Hecate.

But Shakespeare, in MACBETH, always uses Hecate as a dissyllable.

The second speech in this play ascertains the author to have been very familiar with Hall's Chronicle:What should I say? his deeds exceed all speech.

This phrase is introduced upon almost every occasion by Hall, when he means to be eloquent. Hollingshed, not Hall, was Shakespeare's historian. Here then is an additional minute proof that this play was not Shakespeare's. "This is the sum of Malone's argument, as to the first part. He adds, At this distance of time it is impossible to ascertain on what principle it was that Heminge and Condell admitted it into their volume; but I suspect that they gave it a place as a necessary introduction to the two other parts; and because Shakespeare had made some slight alterations, and written a few lines in it.'"

Malone's argument in support of his opinion, that the two parts of the "Contention" were written by a prior dramatist, and merely altered and amplified by Shakespeare, is clearly and fully presented by Singer, in the following abstract:

"The entry, in 1594, does not mention the name of Shakespeare, nor are the plays printed with his name in the early editions; but, after the Poet's death, an edition was printed by Pavier, in 1619, with the name of Shakespeare on the title-page. This was a common fraudulent practice of the booksellers of that period. When Pavier republished the Contention,' he omitted the words as it was acted by the earl of Pembrooke his servantes,' which appeared on the original title-page,-just as on the republication of the old play of King John,' in two parts, in 1611, the words 'as it was acted in the honourable city of London' were omitted; because the omitted words, in both cases, marked the respective pieces not to be the production of Shakespeare. And, as in King John,' the letters W. Sh.' were added, in 1611, to deceive the purchaser; so in the republication of The Whole Contention,' etc., Pavier, having dismissed the words above mentioned, inserted, 'Newly corrected and enlarged by William Shakespeare;'-knowing that these pieces had in fact been corrected and enlarged, and hoping that this new edition of the original plays would pass for those altered and augmented by Shakespeare, then unpublished.

"A passage from Greene's 'Groatsworth of Wit' first suggested and strongly supports Malone's hypothesis. The writer, Robert Greene, is supposed to address himself to his poetical friend, George Peele, thus:- Yes, trust them not, [alluding to the players, ] for there is an upstarte crowe, BEAUTIFIED WITH OUR FEATHERS, that, with his tygres heart wrapt in a players hide, supposes hee is well able to bombaste out a blank verse as the best of you; and, being an absolute Joannes factotum, is, in his own conceit, the only Shake-scene in a country.'-' O tyger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide!' is a line in the First Part of the Contention,' etc. There seems to be no doubt that the allusion is to Shakespeare, that the old plays may have been the production of Greene, Peele, and Marlowe, or some of them; and that Greene could not conceal his mortification at the fame of himself and his associates, old and established playwrights, being eclipsed by a new upstart writer, who had then first attracted the notice of the public by exhibiting two plays formed upon old dramas written by them, considerably enlarged and improved. The very term that Greene uses, 'to bombaste out a blank verse,' corresponds with what has been suggested. This new poet, says he, knows as well as any man how to amplify and swell out a blank verse.

Shakespeare did for the old plays what Berni had done to the Orlando Innamorato' of Boïardo. He wrote new beginnings to the acts; he new versified, he new modelled, he transposed many of the parts; and amplified and improved the whole. Several lines and speeches he accepted and introduced, without any, or with slight alterations.

"The internal evidences upon which Malone relies to establish his position are-1. The variations between the two old plays in quarto, and the corresponding pieces in the folio editions of Shakespeare's dramatic works, which are of so peculiar a nature as to mark two distinct hands. Some circumstances are mentioned in the old plays, of which there is no trace in the folio; and many minute variations occur, that prove the pieces in the quarto to have been original and distinct compositions. No copyist or short-hand writer would invent circumstances totally dif ferent from those which appear in Shakespeare's new-modelled draughts, as exhibited in the first folio; or insert whole speeches, of which scarcely a trace is found in that edition. In some places a speech in one of these quartos consists of ten or twelve lines: in Shakespeare's folio the same speech consists perhaps of only half the number. A copyist by the ear, or an unskilful short-hand writer, might mutilate and exhibit a poet's thoughts or expressions imperfectly; but he would not dilate and amplify them, or introduce totally new matter.

Malone then exhibits a number of instances to prove his position: so that (as he observes) we are compelled to admit either that Shakespeare wrote two sets of plays on the story which forms his second and third parts of KING HENRY VI., hasty sketches, and entirely distinct and more finished performances; or else we must acknowledge that he formed his pieces on a foundation laid by another writer or writers,—that is, upon the two parts of the Contention of the Two Houses of York,' etc. It is a striking circumstance that almost all the passages in the second and third parts of KING HENRY VI., which resemble others in Shakespeare's undisputed plays, are not found in the original pieces, but in his rifaccimento. As these resemblances to his other plays, and a peculiar Shakespearian phraseology, ascertain a considerable portion of these disputed dramas to be the production of that Poet; so, on the other hand, other passages, discordant (in matters of fact) from his other plays, are proved by this discordancy not to have been composed by him; and these discordant passages, being found in the original plays, prove that those pieces were composed by another writer."

Setting aside all considerations of the overwhelming evidence on the other side of the question, these arguments can hardly bear any close examination. Thus, the assumed correspondence of diction, allusion, etc., to Greene, Peele, Lodge, and Marlowe, (authors, by the way, very unlike to each other,) will be found scarcely discernible when the writings of any of them are placed by the side of HENRY VI. No one of them gives any evidence of that consistent biographical delineation carried through a variety of characters, which is found here, while they are also distinguished in different ways by their respective peculiarities, which are not the characteristics of any one of these parts-such, for instance, as the inflated, swelling pomp of Marlowe, his uniform exaggeration of conception and expression. Greene's feeble extravagancies are still further from the substantial reality of these scenes. We must refer the reader who wishes to carry out the details of this comparison, to Knight's "Essay," unless he is familiar enough with the older English drama to carry out the comparison for himself. In either case, he will be compelled to say, with Johnson, “If we take these plays from Shakespeare, to whom shall they be given? What author of that age had the same easiness of expression and fluency of numbers?" It may be added, with equal emphasis.