INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS

THE POPULARITY OF THIS TRAGEDY-ITS DRAMATIC AND POETIC CHARACTER-ITS INTIMATE RELATION TO THE PRECEDING HISTORIES-ITS STYLE AND RHYTHM-PROBABLE DATEEARLY EDITIONS, AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

ICHARD III. is, and long has been-taking the stage and the closet together-the most universally and

popular its Shakespeare's or

three editions, as they originally appeared, separately, in the customary form of quarto pamphlets. Of HamLET, which seems to have been the most popular of the other tragedies, there are but six of these editions; while of RICHARD III., between 1597 and 1634, we have, in addition to the copies in the first two folios, no less than eight separate editions, still preserved,—and it is possible that there may have been yet another, no longer extant. There are also more references and allusions to it, in the writings of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and in those of the next generation of authors, than to any other of his works. For instance, Bishop Corbet, in his poems, Fuller, in his " Church History," and Milton, in one of his prose controversial tracts,—all refer to it, as familiar to their readers. It has kept perpetual possession of the stage, either in its primitive form, or as altered and adapted to the tastes of the times, by Colley Cibber, or by John Kemble. In one or other of these forms, RICHARD III. has been the favourite character of all the eminent English tragedians, from Burbage, the original "Crookback." who was identified in his day, in the public mind, with the part," through the long succession of the monarchs of the English stage,-Betterton, Cibber, Quin, Garrick, Henderson, Kemble, Cooke, Kean,-down to our own days. Yet, in all the higher attributes of the poetic drama, RICHARD III. bears no comparison with the Poet's greater tragedies, or with the graver scenes of his more brilliant comedies. Intellectually and poetically, it must be assigned to a much lower class than ROMEO AND JULIET, or OTHELLO: than LEAR, or MACBETH; than the TEMPEST, or the MERCHANT OF VENICE. It does not exhibit that profusion of intellectual wealth which, in all the Poet's greater works, overflows in every sentence, crowding his dialogue with thought, and continually evolving suggestions of the largest and deepest truth, from the individual passion, character, or incident of the scene. Nor does it display that fresh-springing and exuberant fancy, that exquisite and perpetually present sense of the beautiful, which intertwines the stern thoughts and dark contemplations, even of HAMLET and LEAR, with matchless delicacies of thought and expression, and unexpected images of sweetness or joy.

If we except Clarence's dream, and the description of the murder of the young princes in the Tower-passages such as the author of HAMLET alone could have written-this favourite tragedy has no scenes of the deeply pathetic, or the awfully grand or terrible. Its power and its elevation consist in the grand, original, and sustained conception of its one principal character, almost sublime in its demoniac heroism, in its unflagging energy of heroic guilt" without remorse or dread :"-compelling us, in spite of personal and moral deformity, in spite of falsehood, fraud, treachery, and cruelty, to admire what we detest. Thus its merit is alınost exclusively dramatic, keeping up a constant and excited attention and interest, by the truth and spirit of its acted and living narrative, the rapid succession of stirring incidents, and the vivid portraiture of impressive character,—all sustained by animated dialogue, and occasionally by kindling declamation. The hold on public favour it took at once, and has continued to hold for two centuries and a half, through every variation of popular taste, is the highest and unquestionable proof that, in all these respects, though but faintly marked with other Shakespearian characteristics, it is a work of wonderful originality, vigour, fertility, and power of impression.

The connection of this tragedy with the three parts of HENRY VI., (and especially with the last,) is very striking. This connection differs altogether from that observable between the dramas of HENRY IV. and HENRY V., and those which succeed them in chronological order. Between those, the connection is little more than that which must result from the plot's being drawn from the same common historical source. There is little or no reference,

* Corbet, the witty and poetical Bishop of Oxford, in his Iter Boreale,-a poetical narrative of a journey, in the manner of Horace's "Journey to Brundusium," first printed in 1617,-thus incidentally records the popularity of the play and of its theatrical hero, in his account of a visit to Bosworth Field:

Mine host was full of ale and history,

And in the morning when he brought us nigh
Where the two Roses join'd, you would suppose
Chaucer ne'er made the romaunt of the Rose.

Hear him. See you yon wood? There Richard lay
With his whole army. Look the other way,
And, lo! while Richmond in a bed of gorse
Encamp'd himself all night, and all his force:
Upon this hill they met. Why, he could tell

The inch where Richmond stood, where Richard fell.
Besides what of his knowledge he could say,

He had authentic notice from the play;
Which I might guess by marking up the ghosts,
And policies not incident to hosts;
But chiefly by that one perspicuous thing
Where he mistook a player for a king.

For when he would have said, King Richard died,
And call'd, A horse! a horse! he Burbage cried.

in either of the three parts, to the dialogue or invention of the plays chronologically preceding; nor is there any thing to show that the several pieces were actually written in the order of this narrative, or to contradict the external evidence that the plays prior in chronological order were last written. Precisely the reverse holds true, as to HENRY VI. and RICHARD III. There is here not merely historical agreement, but the latter play is evidently the production of one whose mind was filled with the characters, dialogue, and subsidiary incidents of the preceding dramas. The tyrant-hero is himself but the full-grown, gigantic development of the young Gloster of HENRY VI., as Margaret is but the sequel, in her bitter, vindictive old age, of the very Margaret, not of dry history, but of these dramas.

I, therefore, fully agree with Knight and other critics, who reject Malone's theory of the authorship of HENRY VI., that this agreement and close connection are so strong, as to stamp the whole series as the continuous emanation of the same mind; since no mere adoption of the characters, and carrying out the ideas of another, would effect such a harmonious and spirited union, especially where such a personage as Richard is the central and prominent figure. There is another characteristic of RICHARD III. in this same relation, which I do not recollect to have seen noticed by the commentators. It is that, in style and in versification, RICHARD III. has much of the cast of those portions of HENRY VI. denied to be his, and comparatively little-though it has some of those peculiarites of manner and rhythm, which we now designate as Shakespearian. Its diction and its versification are in a transition state between those of his earlier works and those of HENRY IV. and the MERCHANT OF VENICE. From these indications, I should not hesitate to pronounce that it was written soon after the two parts of the "Contention," and before HENRY IV., KING JOHN, or even the first form of ROMEO AND JULIET. Thus we may here trace the varied, but nevertheless progressive, development of the Poet's mind; the three parts of HENRY VI. successively rising each above the other, and preparing us for the higher dramatic excellence of RICHARD III., far superior to any of them, yet superior, chiefly, in the same class and kind; while RICHARD III. again, in Clarence's dream and other scattered passages, shows the dawn of that poetic splendour, and the early gushings of that flood of thought, which was thenceforward to enrich all the Poet's dramatic conceptions.

RICHARD III. was first printed in 1597, but had been some time on the stage before its publication, and there is reason to think it had attained popular favour before 1595, and that it may have been written in 1503 or 1504. Among other reasons for this date-none conclusive, but together amounting to a strong probability—is that John Weaver, in his "Epigrams," in some laudatory verses to the "Honie-tongued Shakespeare," after ardent eulogy of his poems, speaks only of "Romeo and Richard," with "more whose names I know not," as his dramatic offspring. The internal evidence of this book is pronounced by Singer, who refers to the only known copy, "thought to be unique," to show that the “Epigrams" were written in 1595. This tragedy was then printed without the name of any author-a circumstance which has been thought of much weight in relation to the contested question of Shakespeare's authorship of the earlier sketches of HENRY VI., but which, as it occurred as to this play, as to HENRY V., and others, only shows that Shakespeare's name alone had not yet become valuable to the trade.

46

The edition of 1597 bore this title:-"The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther of his innocent nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. At London, Printed by Valentine Sims, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Angell. 1597." It was reprinted in 1598, with "by William Shake-speare" in the title-page; and again at intervals, in the same form, and substantially with the same text, in 1603, 1605. 1613. 1624, 1629, and 1634. These three last separate editions appeared after the play had been printed in the folio collection,-showing that there was still a demand for this play separately, after that of the wholesale readers and admirers of the great Poet had been supplied by the publication of his collected works. lo that collection it appears with very many slight changes, some omissions, and some considerable additions. The added lines, like Richard's narrative of his father's death, (act i. scene 2,) and Queen Elizabeth's apostrophe to the Tower," seem to me decidedly in a later manner of the Poet's than the rest. There are also two or three omissions of some characteristic and effective lines, that seem to have been left out by mere accident; and one or two lines that certainly were so, as the context shows that they are necessary to the obvious sense. The alterations are numerous, and most of them apparently slight; yet, if critically examined, they will be found to be precisely such as an author would himself make. Many of them are changes of words, especially epithets, for others nearly synonymous, to avoid the effect of an accidental repetition. Others again are obviously intended to adapt the speech to a more studied conception of Richard's character, such as I have thought might have been suggested by Burbage himself, in the course of his long study of the part. Such, for instance, is the changing the impatient “Well, sir, as you guess—as you guess," of some earlier editions, (addressed by Richard to Stanley, act iv. scene 4,) to the cooler, sarcastic, and contemptuous "Well, as you guess," of the folio. Regarding, therefore, the folio as the revised text of this play, that copy has been followed throughout, using the earlier editions as a guide to correct any apparent accidental mistakes. The reader, therefore, will find that the text, though generally agreeing with the editions of Knight and Collier, differs in many particulars from that ordinarily used. It is of course different, in many popular passages, from the ordinary theatrical text, which is that of Colley Cibber, patched up from different plays of Shakespeare's, with interpolations of his own. It varies also from the ordinary printed text, which has been formed, by Stevens and others, on an arbitrary principle, thus stated by Malone:-"The text has been formed out of the two copies, the folio and early quarto; from which the preceding editors have, in every scene, selected such reading as appeared to them fit to be adopted." As Stevens pronounced the first quarto to be the best text, that has been most commonly followed. The notes of this edition contain all the various

readings of any interest, and some others that hardly deserve that appellation; upon all of which the critical reader may form his own judgment.

MATERIALS OF THE PLOT.

Shakespeare has, throughout, closely followed the relation of Sir Thomas More, although apparently not from More's original narrative, but as it is incorporated in Hall's chronicle, under his titles of "The pitiful Life of Edward the Fifth," and "The Tragical Doings of Richard III." The details of these historical materials, as well as the modern literary scepticism in relation to them, will be noticed further in the notes.

There were also some prior plays on the same subject, but it is very evident that they have contributed nothing to Shakespeare's RICHARD III. Some account of them will be found at the end of the notes.

COSTUME, ETC., OF THE PERIODS OF HENRY VI. AND RICHARD III.

The number of historical personages introduced in the plays of HENRY VI. and RICHARD III., of whom we have the "lively effigies" handed down to us, render needless the verbal description of the costume of their respective periods, as portraits of the principal individuals in their habits, as they lived, require scarcely any explanation. Henry VI. himself, in his younger days, is almost the only personage for whose dress we have no contemporary authority.

"Of the Duke of Bedford, there is an authentic representation in the splendid manuscript called the Bedford Missal. He is attired in a richly-embroidered robe, with the extravagantly long sleeves of the period; his hair is cut short all round his head, in accordance with the fashion of the preceding reign. The tapestry behind him is covered with his badge, the root of a tree, and his word,' or motto, a vous entier.' Of Henry Beaufort, CardinalBishop of Winchester, there remains a fine effigy on his tomb in Winchester cathedral. He is in his cardinal's robes. The sleeves of the under tunic are black, edged with white; at each side of his face, which is placid and beardless, appears a little lock of black hair. On his hands are gloves fringed with gold, and having an oval-shaped jewel (an ancient mark of dignity) on the back. On the middle and third fingers of each hand are rings, worn over the gloves. Of John Beaufort, Duke and Earl of Somerset, there is a splendid effigy in Wimborne Minster, Dorsetshire, representing him in a richly-ornamented suit of armour of this period. He is without a jupon, or surcoat, in complete plate, the borders elaborately engraved and gilt. The bascinet is surrounded by a coronet. the tassets, or plates below the cuirass, are appended by straps and buckles those additional defences for the thighs called tuilles, which first appear in this reign; and just above them, over the hips, he wears the military belt, or girdle, to which are affixed on one side his sword, and on the other his dagger.

To

"Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, is represented in his civil attire in a window of St. Mary's Hall, at Coventry, engraved in Dugdale's Warwickshire.' He wears a richly-ornamented hood; a loose robe of some figured stuff, with large sleeves, lined with ermine, over a tight under-dress of cloth, or velvet.

'Of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, there is also a fine effigy in armour, and wearing the mantle of the Garter, beautifully engraved in Mr. Stothard's valuable work of Sepulchral Monuments. Thomas Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, is depicted in armour in a manuscript copy of Lydgate's poem, The Pilgrim,' (Harleian Collection, No. 4826.) The tassets have no tuilles attached to them, and the cloak with escalloped edges, worn with the armour, is a fashion of the time of Henry V.

"Of the celebrated Joan of Arc the only authentic, because the only contemporary representation known to us, is that engraved in Millin's work, from the monument erected to her memory at Orleans, by Charles VII. Charles and Joan are thereon sculptured kneeling, in complete armour. The painting in the Town Hall of Orleans is, as the costume proves, of the time of our Henry VII., and is believed by some not to have been originally intended to represent La Pucelle.

"From the authorities here given, our readers will be able, as we have before observed, to perceive at once the particular alterations in costume which characterize the unquiet reign of Henry VI. A great variety of caps, hats, and hoods, were now introduced; feathers were rarely used, and seem to have gone out of fashion again with the reign of Henry V. In armour, we find the salet, or salade,-a steel cap something resembling the bascinet, but taking more the form of the head, and descending lower in the neck, where it was sometimes furnished with jointed plates. The spurs at this time were very long-necked, had exceedingly large rowels, and were screwed into the heels of the steel sollerets, instead of being fastened by straps and buckles. The hair was still worn very short; and beards and moustaches appear but rarely.

66

In the female attire, the principal change is observable in the head-dress,-that which is generally called the heart-shaped or reticulated form prevailing. Turbans of a very Oriental character are also seen occasionally in the illuminated manuscripts of this period.

"As the Mayor of London appears in this play, we may remark, that Stow relates that when Henry VI. returned from France, in 1432, the Lord Mayor of London rode to meet him at Eltham, being arrayed in crimson velvet, a great velvet hat, furred, a girdle of gold about his middle, and a baldrick of gold about his neck, trailing down behind him his three henchmen in one suit of red, spangled with silver; the Aldermen in gowns of scarlet with purple hoods; and all the cominonalty of the city in white gowns and scarlet hoods, with divers cognizances embroidered on their sleeves.

:

"The livery colours of the house of Lancaster were white and blue: those of the house of York, murrey and blue."

On that portion of the middle part of Henry VI.'s reign, which forms the second part of the play of HENRY VI., we quote the following notices from Mr. Planché :

:

Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, is depicted on glass in Trinity Hall, Cambridge; the figure has been frequently but improperly engraved as Richard Duke of Gloster. Sandford mentions another painting on glass of this Richard Plantagenet, in the east window of the north aisle of Cirencester church in Gloucestershire, having on the pomel of his sword the arms of Mortimer Earl of March, it may be thereby to signifie that, although he was forced to use the blade to dispute his right to the crown, yet did he shroud himself under the shield or hilt of a good title.'"

Mr. Planché denies the authenticity of the portraits of Duke Humphrey.

"The costume for the third part of KING HENRY VI. is in fact that of the reign of Edward IV., the principal characteristics of which were, in male attire, the exceeding shortness of the jackets, doublets, or pourpoints, and the padding out of the shoulders of them with large waddings, called mahoitres,—the sleeves being slit up the back or across the elbow, to show those of the white shirt. This was the commencement of the fashion of slashing, which became so prevalent in the next century. The hood had now disappeared entirely, except from official dresses; and bonnets of cloth, a quarter of an ell in height, were worn by the beaux of the day, who also, instead of cropping the hair all round, as in the last three reigns, suffered it to grow to such a length that it came into their eyes. The toes of their shoes and boots were at first ridiculously long and pointed, and towards the close of the reign as preposterously broad and round. These extravagancies were endeavoured to be checked by sumptuary laws in the third and twenty-second years of Edward's reign, but, as usual, with very little effect. In the female dress some remarkable changes also occur. The gowns have very long trains, with broad velvet borders. The waists are

very short, and confined by broad belts buckled before. The steeple head-dress (similar to the Cauchoise, still worn in Normandy, and so called from the Pays de Caux) is a peculiar mark of this reign in England.

"Of the historical personages in this play we have several representations. A portrait of Edward IV., of the Society of Antiquaries, gives this idea of his general appearance and costume:-He wears a black cap, with a rich ornament and pendant pearl. His outer dress is cloth of gold-the under one black. In the royal manuscript (marked 15 E. 4') we see him on his throne receiving a book, and surrounded by some of the principal officers of his court. In a manuscript in the Lambeth library, also, he is depicted on his throne receiving a volume from the hands of Lord Rivers, and Caxton, his printer; and by his side stands his queen, the young Prince Edward, and another royal personage, similarly attired with the Prince, who is supposed to be either Richard Duke of Gloster, or George Duke of Clarence. "Of Louis XI., King of France, there are authentic portraits in Montfaucon."

"The Monk of Croyland informs us that the new fashion' Edward IV. ' chose for the last state-dresses was to have very full hanging sleeves like a monk's, lined with the most sumptuous furs, and so rolled over his shoulders as to give his tall person an air of peculiar grandeur.' This fashion was continued during the remainder of the century, and was not altogether abandoned in the reign of Henry VIII. By a sumptuary law enacted in the last year of Edward's reign, we find also that purple cloth of gold, and silk of a purple colour, were confined to the use of the royal family, while none under the degree of a duke might wear cloth of gold of tissue. Inferior noblemen were restricted to plain cloth of gold, knights to velvet, esquires to satin, etc. Short gowns and upper-dresses of various descriptions were worn at this time, with long sleeves, having an opening in front, through which the arm came, leaving the outer sleeve to hang as an ornament from the shoulder. Feathers became more frequent towards the close of this reign, one or more being worn in the cap, behind, and jewelled up the stem. The hair was worn in large square masses on each side of the head, and low on the forehead.

"There are two portraits of Richard III., painted on board, in the meeting-room of the Society of Antiquaries, at Somerset House. The first has been lithographed for the fifth volume of the Paston Letters.' It represents the king attired in a robe of cloth of gold, over a close dress of scarlet; a black cap with a pearl ornament. His hair is brown, and long. His right hand is engaged in placing a ring upon, or drawing it off, the third finger of the left hand. This portrait is evidently by the same painter with that of Edward IV. In the other, Richard is portrayed with a short sword or dagger in his hand,* dressed in a black robe, with sleeves of black and crimsonan under-dress of cloth of gold, and a small black cap. In the absence of any well-authenticated portrait or effigy of Richard, these paintings are certainly very interesting, as there can be little doubt that they were executed during or immediately subsequent to his reign, and may therefore be presumed to convey a general idea of the style of person and dress, if not an absolute likeness. In both he is represented as a hard-featured man, with rather a forbidding countenance, and certainly not bearing out the flattering description of the old Countess of Desmond, who had danced with him when Duke of Gloster, and is stated to have declared that he was the handsomest man in the room except his brother, King Edward IV. Sir Thomas More, however, says 'his face was hard-favoured or warly,' which latter word Grafton renders 'warlike;' and unless these pictures were painted

It is said by Polydore Virgil that Richard had a trick of fidgeting with his dagger, continually half-drawing and sheathing it again, while in conversation. One might imagine the painter of the second picture had intended to represent this peculiarity. The opinion of Mr. Sharon Turner, also, that this habit was but "the mark of a restless impatience of spirit which would not let even the fingers be quiet," is singularly supported by the first portrait, in which Richard appears to be playing in the same manner with his ring, by drawing it off and on his finger.