Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

tor of the 4to, 1599, strangely misunderstanding it, printed it! Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Righó as follows:

honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. London “Ile steale to Glendower and loe Mortimer;">

Printed by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Millington, and Iohn as if Lo; of the 4to, 1598, were to be taken as the interjection,

Busby, And are to be sold at his house in Carter Lane, lo! then usually printed loe, and so the blunder was followed

next the Powle head. 1600. 4to. 27 leaves. in the subsequent quartos, including that of 1613, froni whence

66 The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, With his batteil it was transferred, literatim, to the folio, 1623. The error is

fought at Agin Court in France. Together with Auntient repeated in the folio, 1632; but Norton, the printer of the 4to,

Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right 1639, who, as has been remarked, did not adopt the text of

honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his servants. London either of the folios, saw that there must be a blunder in the

Printed by Thomas Creede, for Thomas Panier, and are to line, and although he did not know exactly how to set it right,

be sold at his slop in Cornhill, at the signe of the Cat and he at least made sense of it, by giving it,

Parrets, neare the Exchange. 1602.” 4to. 26 leaves.

" The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, with his battell “I'll steal to Glendower and to Mortimer."

fought at Agin Court in France. Together with ancient We only adduce this instance as one proof, out of many Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right which might be brought forward, to establish the superiority / Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Printed of the text of the 4to. of 1598, to any of the subsequent re for T. P. 1608." 4to. 27 leaves. impressions.

6The Life of Henry the Fift," in the folio of 1623, occupies

twenty-seven pages, viz. froin p. 69 to p. 95 inclusive. The

pagination from “ Henry IV." Part ii. to “ Henry V." is SECOND PART OF KING HENRY IV.

not continued, but a new series begins with “ Henry V." " The Second part of Henrie the fourth, continuing to his

on p. 69, and is regularly followed to the end of the i His

tories."' The folio, 1632, adopts this error, but it is avoided death, and coronation of Henrie the fift. With the humours of Sir Iohn Falstaffe, and swaggering Pistoll. As it hath

in the two later folio impressions. been sundrie times publikely acted by the right honourable, / It is a circumstance deserving reinark, that not one of the the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Written by William title-pages of the quarto editions of “Henry V.? attributes Shakespeare. London Printed by V. S. for Andrew Wise, the authorship of the play to Shakespeare. It was printed and William Aspley. 1600." 4to. 43 leaves.

three several times during the life of the poet, but in no inOther copies of the same edition, in quarto, not containing stance with his name. The fact, no doubt, is, that there never Sign. È 5 and E 6, have only 41 leaves.

was an authorized edition of “Henry V." until it appeared In the folio, 1623, The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, in the folio of 1623, and that the quarto impressions were

containing his Death: and the Coronation of King Henry surreptitious, and were published without the consent of the the Fift," occupies twenty-nine pages in the division of author, or of the company to which he was attached. They 6 Histories,” viz. from p. 74 to p. 102 inclusive, the last came out in 1600, 1602, and 1608, the one being merely a retwo not being numbered. Pages 89 and 90, by an error of print of the other; and, considering the

print of the other : and, considering the imperfectness and the press, are numbered 91 and 92. In the reprint of the deficiency of the text in the quarto of 1600, it is perhaps folio, 1632, this mistake is repeated. In the two later folios strange that no improvements were made in the subsequent the pagination continued from the beginning to the end of impressions. The drama must have enjoyed great popularity; the volume.

it must have been played over and over again at the theatre, We may state with more certainty than usual, that " Henry and yet the public interest, as far as perusal is concerned, IV." Part ii. was written before the 25th Feb. 1598. In the would seem to have been satisfied with a brief, rude, and mupreliminary notice of " Henry IV." Part i. it is mentioned, tilated representation of the performance. The quartos can that Act ii. sc. 2, of the 66 history " before us contains a piece be looked upon in no other light than as fragments of the of evidence that Falstaff was still called Oldcastle when it was original play, printed in haste for the satisfaction of public written; viz. that the prefix of Old, is retained in the quarto, curiosity. 1600, before a speech which belongs to Falstaff, and which The quar os bear strong external and internal evidence of is assigned to him in the folio of 1623. Now, we know that

w that, fraud : the earliest of them was not published hy a bookseller the name of Oldcastle was changed to that of Falstaff anterior

or booksellers by whom Shakespeare's genuine dramas were to the entry of “ Henry IV." Part i. in the books of the Sta

nter of Henry IV u Bart in the hoole of the Star issued; and the second and third came from the hands of tioners' Company on the 25th Feb. 1597-8. This circumstance

Thomas Pavior, who was instrumental in giving to the world overturns Malone's theory, that " Henry IV." Part ii, was some pieces, with the composition of which Shakespeare had not written until 1599. It requires no proof that it was pro

no concern, though ascribed to him on the title-page. The duced after « Richard II.' because that play is quoted in it. internal evidence shows that the edition was made up, not

The memorandum in the Stationers' Registers, prior to the from any authentic manuscript, nor even from ary combinapublication of the following play, is inserted literatim in Vol. tion of the separate parts delivered out to the actor's by the ii. p. 183 : it bears date on 28 Aug, 1600, and it was made copyist of the theatre, but from what could be taken down in by Andrew Wise and William Aspley, who brought out

short-hand, or could be remembered, while the performance 66 The Seconde Parte of the History of Kinge Henry the iiiith" was taking place. It is true that the quarto impressions con4to, in that year.

tain not the slightest hint of the Chorusses, nor of whole There was only one edition of " Henry IV." Part ii. in 1600, scenes, and long speeches, found in the folio of 1623 : and but some copies vary importantly. The play was evidently the inference seems to be that “ Henry V.” was originally produced from the press in haste; and besides other large

produced by Shakespeare in a comparatively incomplete state, omissions, a whole scene, forming the commencement of Act

and that large portions contained in the folio, and of which iii. was left out. Most of the copies are without these pages,

no trace can be pointed out in the quartos, were added at a but they are found in those of the Duke of Devonshire and

and subsequent date, to give greater novelty and attraction to the Malone. The stationer must have discovered the error after

drama. Such, we know, was a very common course with all the publication, and sheet E was accordingly reprinted, in

our early stage-poets. A play called " Henry V.” was repreorder to supply the defect.

sented at Court on the 7th Jan. 1605, as we learn from "The The folio 1623 was taken from a complete copy of the edi

of the edi. Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels, " edited by Mr. tion of 1600; and, moreover, the actor-editors, probably from

P. Cunningham, and printed by the Shakespeare Society,

! a play-house manuscript in their hands, furnished many other p..

of p. 204; and these important additions may have been inserted lines wanting in the quarto. On the other hand, the quarto,

for that occasion. The entry runs, literatin, as follows:1600, contains several passages not found in the folio, 1623.

“On the 7 of January was played the play of Henry Our text includes both, (properly distinguished in the notes)

the fift." in order that no syllable which came from the pen of Shake

In the margin we are informed that it was acted by his Maspeare may be lost. Even if we suppose our great dramatist jesty's players, but the name of the author is not in this into have himself rejected certain portions, preserved in the

stance given, although “Shaxberd” is placed opposite the quarto, the exclusion of them by à modern editor would be

title of “Measure for Measure,” stated to have been exhiunpardonable, as they form part of the history of the poet's

bited on a preceding night. The fact that the actors belonged mind.

to Shakespeare's company renders it most probable that his play was performed on the occasion, but it is to be recollected also, that the old play of " The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth' purports on the title-page to have been "acted by

the King's Majesty's servants," even at so late a date as 1617, “ The Cronicle History of Henry the fift, With his battell when the last edition of it made its appearance. Neverthe

fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient less, we may perhaps take it for granted, that the "Henry the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-four pages; viz. counted for by the surreptitious manner in which the manufrom p. 96 to p. 119 inclusive, in the division of "His- script, from which they were printed, was obtained by the tories." It was reprinted in the folios 1632, 1664, and 1685. booksellers. In support of the first of these opinions, little

eover, the actor furnished many other for that occasion of January was

KING HENRY V.

the fift, " played at Whitehall by the king's servants, on 7th! This historical drama is first found in the folio of 1623: no Jan. 1605, was Shakespeare's historical drama; and it may earlier edition of it in any shape, or in any degree of impernot be too much to presume, that most of the additions (Cho- fectness, has been discovered. Of the second and third parts russes excepted) included in the folio of 1623, were written in of “ Henry VI., " copies in quarto, under different titles, consequence of the selection of " Henry V." by the Master lengthened in some speeches, and abbreviated in others, are of the Revels for representation before James I.

extant; but the first part of " Henry VI." appeared originally Our opinion, then, is that Shakespeare did not originally in the collected edition of " Mr. William Shakespeare's Comcwrite his “ Henry V." by any means as we find it in the folio dies, Histories, and Tragedies," put forth under the care of of 1623, and that it was first produced without various scenes his fellow-actors, Heminge and Condell.. and speeches subsequently written and introduced: we are This single fact is sufficient, in our mind, to establish perfectly convinced that the three quarto editions of 1600, Shakespeare's claim to the authorship of it, even were we to 1602, and 1608 do not at all contain the play as it was acted take Malone's assertion for granted (which we are by no in the first instance; but were hastily made up from notes means inclined to do) that the internal evidence is all opposed taken at the theatre during the performance, subsequently to that claim. When Heminge and Condell publislied the patched together. Now and then we meet with a few coll- folio of 1623, many of Shakespeare's contemporaries, authors, secutive lines, similar to the authentic copy, but in general actors, and auditors, were alive; and the plavor-editors, if they the text is miserably mangled and disfigured. We might find would have been guilty of the dishonesty, would hardly have proofs in support of our position in every part of the play, committed the folly of inserting a play in their volume which but as in his "Twenty quartos ” Steevens has l'eprinted that was not his production, and perhaps weil known to have of 1608, it will be needless to select more than a single speci- been the work of some rival dramatist. If we imagine the fremen. We give the text as we find it, literatim, in the quarto, quenters of theatres to have been comparatively ignorant upon 1600, from the copy in the Library of the Duke of Devon- such a point, living anthors and living actors must have been shire: our extract is from Acti. sc. 2, the speech of the King, aware of the truth, and in the face of these Hemingeand Condell just before the French Ambassadors are called in:

would not have ventured to appropriate to Shakespeare what 6 Call in the messenger sent from the Dolphin,

had really come from the pen of another. That tricks of the And by your aid, the noble sinewes of our land

kind were sometimes played by fraudulent booksellers, in France being ours, weele bring it to our awe,

publishing single plays, is certainly true; but Heminge and Or break it all in pieces : Eyther our Chronicles shal with full mouth speak

Condell were actors of repute, and men of character: they Freely of our acts,

were presenting to the world, in an important volume, scatOr else like toonglesse mutes :

tered performances, in order to keep the memory of so Not worshipt with a paper epitaph."

worthy a friend and fellow alive, as was our Shakespeare," Such is the speech as it is abridged and corrupted in the and we cannot believe that they would have included any quarto, 1600 : the correct text, as contained in the folio of drama to which he had no title. In all probability they had 1623, may be found in this edition.

acted with Shakespeare in the first part of “Henry VI. :" It not unfrequently happened that the person who took they had received his instructions and directions from time down the lines as the actors delivered them, for the purpose to time with reference to the performance of it, and they must of publishing the quarto, 1600, misheard what was said, and almost necessarily have been acquainted with the real state used wrong words which'in sound nearly resembled the right: of the property in it. thus, earlier in the same scene, the Archbishop of Canterbury Our opinion is therefore directly adverse to that of Malone, says, according to the folio, 1623,

who, having been "long struck with the many evident « They of those Marches, gracious sovereign,

Shakespeareanisms in these plays," afterwards came to the Shall be a wall sufficient to defend

conclusion that he had been entirely mistaken, and that none Our inland from the pilfering borderers."

of these peculiarities were to be traced in the first part of In the quarto, 1600, the materials for which were probably " Henry VI.:”.“I am, therefore (he added), decisively of siirreptitiously obtained at the theatre, the passage is thus opinion, that this play was not written by Shakespeare." To given :

support this notion, he published a “Dissertation on the 6 The Marches, gracious soveraigne, shalbe sufficient

Three Parts of King Henry VI.," in which he argued that To guard your England from the pilfering borderers."

the first part was not only not the authorship of Shakespeare, We might multiply instances of the same kind, but we do

but that it was not written by the same persons who had not think there can be any reasonable doubt upon the point.

composed the second and third parts of " Henry VI.”

ith reference to the question, how far and at what time The quartos, as we have stated, contain no hint of the

Shakespeare became connected with the plays, known as the Chorusses, but a passage in that which precedes Act v. cer

three parts of " Henry VI.," it is necessary to observe, that tainly relates to the expedition of the Earl of Essex to Ireland, between the 15th April and the 28th Sept. 1599, and must

it was very usual in the time of our great dramatist, for one

poet to take up the production of another, and, by making have been written during his absence :

additions to and improvements in it, to appropriate it to his “As, by a lower but loving likelihood,

own use, or to the use of the theatre to which he belonged. Were now the general of our gracious empress

This practice applied to the works of living as well as of dead (As in good time he may) from Ireland coming, Bringing rebellion broached on his sword,

poets, and it has been conjectured that when Robert Greene, How many would the peaceful city quit

in his “Groatsworth of Wit," 1592, spoke of Shakespeare, as To welcome him."

"the only Shake-scene in a country," and as "an upstart The above lines were, therefore, composed between the 15th crow beautified with our feathers," he alluded chiefly to the April and the 28th Sept. 1599, and most likely the Chorusses manner in which Shakespeare had employed certain dramas, formed part of the piece as originally acted, although the by Greene and others, as the foundation of his three parts of short-hand writer did not think it a necessary.portion of the "Henry VI." These certain dramas were some undiscovered performance to be included in the earliest quarto, 1600, which original of the first part of “Henry VI.; " the first part of was to be brought on with great speed; and' perhaps the “The Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York length of these and other recitations might somewhat bafile and Lancaster, 1600; and “The True Tragedy of Richard his skill. Upon this supposition, the question when Shake Duke of York," 1595. It was by making additions, alteraspeare wrote his " Henry V." is brought to a narrow point; tions, and improvements in these three pieces, that Shakeand confirmed as it is by the omission of all mention of thé speare's name became associated with them as their author, play by Meres, in his Pälladis Tamid, 1598, we need feel lit- and hence the player-editors felt themselves justified in intle doubt that his first sketch came from the pen of Shake-serting them among his other works in the folio of 1623. speare, for performance at the Globe theatre, early in the There are two other theories respecting the elder plays we summer of 1599. The enlarged drama, as it'stands in the have mentioned, neither of them, as it seems to us, supported folio of 1623, we are disposed to believe was not put into the by sufficient testimony. One of them is, that the first part complete shape in which it has there come down to us, until of “Henry VI.," as it is contained in the folio of 1623, the shortly before the date when it was played at Court.

first part of the - Contention," 1594, and the “True Tragedy,” 1595, were in fact productions by Shakespeare him

self, which he subsequently enlarged and corrected: the FIRST PART OF KING HENRY VI. other theory is, that the two latter were early editions of the

same dramas that we find in the folio, and that the imper" The first Part of Henry the Sixt " was printed originally in fections or variations in the quarto impressions are to be ac

cowaniummemmornare anonimimemwonnen

better than conjecture can be produced, contradicted by the / wished to have it believed, that the old play was the producexpressions of Greene in 1592, as far as those expressions tion of our great dramatist. apply to these plays; and with regard to the second opinion, Shakespeare's property, according to our present notions, in some places the quarto editions of the first part of the was only in the additions and improvements he introduced, 6 Contention” and the “True Tragedy" are fuller, by many which are included in the folio of 1623. In Act. iv. sc. 1, is lines, than the copy in the folio, 1623, which would hardly a line necessarily taken from the first part of the Contenhave been the case, had the dialogue been taken down in tion," as the sense, without it, is incomplete; but the old short-hand, and correct

in the nex

next place, the play has many passages which Shakespeare rejected, and the speeches have such a degree of completeness and regularity murder of Duke Humphrey is somewhat differently managed. as to render it very improbable that they were obtained by so In general, however, Shakespeare adopted the whole conduct uncertain and imperfect an expedient. We think it most of the story, and did not think it necessary to correct the oblikely that the first part of " Henry VI." was founded upon a vious historical errors of the original. previous play, although none such has been brought to light: It is impossible to assign a date to this play excepting by and that the materials for the second and third parts of conjecture. Its success, perhaps, led to the entry at Station6. Henry VI." were mainly derived from the older dramas of ers' Hall of the older play in March, 1593, and to its appearthe first part of “ The Contention betwixt the Two Famous ance from the press in 1594. Houses of York and Lancaster," and “ The True Tragedy of'. Richard Duke of York."

Although no such drama has come down to us, we know, THIRD PART OF KING HENRY VI. on the authority of Henslowe's Diary, that there was a play called “Harey the VI." acted on 3d March, 1591-2, and so 6 The third Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the popular as to have been repeated twelve times. This was,

Duke of Yorke," was first printed in the folio of 1623, where perhaps, the piece which Shakespeare subsequently altered

it occupies twenty-six pages, in the division of “ Histories," and improved, and to which Nash alludes in his 16 Pierce

viz. from p. 147 to p. 172, inclusive, pages 165 and 166 being Penniless," 1592 (sign. H. 2.), where he speaks of " brave

misprinted 167 and 168, so that these numbers are twice Talbot” having been made “to triumph again on the stage,"

inserted. The error is corrected in the folio, 1632. The after having been two hundred years in his tomb. Malone

play is also contained in the folios of 1664 and '1685. (Shakespeare, by Boswell, vol. iii. p. 298.) concludes decisively in the affirmative on both these points, forgetting,

None of the commentators ever saw the first edition of the however, that the “Harey the VI." acted by Henslowe's com

drama upon which, we may presume, Shakespeare founded

his third part of “ Henry VI.:" it bears the following title :pany, might possibly be a play got up and represented in consequence of the success of the drama in the authorship of

6. The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death

of the good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention which Shakespeare was concerned. If our great dramatist founded his first part of" Henry VI."

betweene the two houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sunupon the play produced by Henslowe's company, of course, it

drie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pemcould not have been written until after March, 1592; but with

brooke his seruants. Printed at London by P. S. for Thomas regard to the precise date of its composition we must remain

Millington, and are to be sold at his shoppe under Saint in uncertainty. Malono's later notion was, as we have already

Peters Church in Cornwal. 1595," 8vo. This play, like " the

First Part of the Contention," was reprinted for the same observed, that Shakespeare's hand was not to be traced in

bookseller in 1600, 4to. About the year 1619 a re-impression any part of it; but Steevens called attention to several re

El of both plays was published by T. P.; and the name of markable coincidences of expression, and passages might be pointed out so much in the spirit and character of Shake

Shakespeare, as has been already observed in our Introduc

tion to % Henry VI." part ii., first appears in connection with speare, that we cannot conceive them to have come from any

these "histories" in that edition. other pen. Coleridge has instanced the opening of the play

Believing that Shakespeare was not the writer of "The as unlike Shakespeare's metre (Lit. Remains, vol. ii. p. 184.): he was unquestionably right; but he did not advert to the

- First Part of the Contention," 1594, nor of “ The True Tra

gedy of Richard Duke of York, 1595, and that Malone estabfact, of which there is the strongest presumptive evidence, that more than one author was engaged on the work. The

lished his position, that Shakespeare only enlarged and altered very discordance of style forms part of the proof; and in his

them, it becomes a question by whom they were produced. lectures in 1815, Coleridge adduced many lines which he be

Chalmers, who possessed the only known copy of "The True

Tragedy," 1595, without scruple assigned that piece to Chrislieved must have been written by Shakespeare.

topher Marlowe. Although there is no ground whatever for

giving it to Marlowe, there is some reason for supposing that SECOND PART OF KING HENRY VI, it came from the pen of Robert Greene.

In the Introduction to “Henry VI." part i., we alluded, as 66 The second part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the far as was there necessary, to the language of Greene, when

Good Duke Hymfrey," was first printed in the folio of 1623, speaking of Shakespeare in his “Groats worth of Wit," 1592. where it occupies twenty-seven pages: viz. from p. 120 tó This tract was not published until after the death of its author p. 146 inclusive, in the division of Histories." It fills the in Sept. 1592, when it appeared under the editorship of Henry same place in the subsequent folio impressions.

Chettlel; and what follows is the whole that relates to our

great dramatist :-"Yes, trust them not; for there is an upTHE “history” is an alteration of a play printed in 1594, start crow beautified with our feathers, that with his tigeris under the following title: 6 The First part of the Contention

heart, wrapp'd in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able betwixt the two famous houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with to

er; Winto bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of

OI only Shakescene in a countrey." (Dyce's Edit. of Greene's the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion Works, I. lxxxii) In this extract, although Greene talks of of Iacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime unto the man

e" an upstart crow beautified with our feathers," he seems to Crowne. London Printed by Thomas Creed, for Thomas havan

omas have referred principally to his own works, and to the manner Millington, and are to be sold at his shop under Saint Peter's in which Shakespeare 'had availed himself of them. This Church in Cornwall. 1594." By whom it was written we löninion is

I was written we opinion is somewhat confirmed by two lines in a tract called have no information; but it was entered on the Stationers' Greene's Funerals.'' by R. B., 1594, where the writer is Registers on the 12th March, 1593. Millington published a

adverting to the obligations of other authors to Greene :second edition of it in 1600: on the 19th April, 1602, it was assigned by Millington to Tho. Pavier, and we hear of it

"Nay more, the men that so eclips'd his fame again, in the Stationers Register, merely as “ Yorke and

Purloin'd'his plumes--can they deny the same ?" Lancaster," on the 8th November, 1630.

Here R. B. nearly adopts Greene's words, beautified with The name of Shakespeare was not connected with "the our feathers," and applies to him individually what Greene, first part of the Contention,” until about the year 1619, when perhaps to avoid the charge of egotism and vanity, had stated T. P. (Thonias Pavier) printed a new edition of the first, and more generally. It inay be mentioned, also, as a confirmatory what he called “the second, part of the same play, with the circumstance, that the words "tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a name of " William Shakspeare, Gent." upon the general title-player's hidé," in our extract from the “Groatsworth of

1 Chettle acknowledges the important share he had in the publica made for the Percy Society, under the editorial care of Mr. Rimbault tion of " The Groatsworth of Wit," in his "Kind-heart's Dream,' In his address to the " Gentlemen Readers," Chettle apologizes to which was printed at the close of 1592, or in the beginning of 1593. Shakespeare (not by name) for having been instrumental in the pubSee the excellent reprint of this very curious and interesting tract Ilication of Greene's attack upon him.

[ocr errors]

1

1

the change of a word, of a line in "The True Tragedy," 1595, 1 pation : with the whole course of his detested life, and "O! tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a woman's hide."

most deserued death. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Thus Greene, when charging Shakespeare with having ap- | London: Printed by Valentine Sims. for Andrew Wise.

Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. At propriated his plays, parodies a line of his own, as if to show { dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Augell. the particular productions to which he alludedı.

1597." 4to. 47 leaves... Another fact tends to the same conclusion: it is a striking - The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining coincidence between a passage in " The True Tragedy' and

his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the some lines in one of Greene's acknowledged dramas, “ Al

pitiful murther of his innocent Nephewes : his tyrannicall phonsus, King of Arragon," printed, in 1599, by Thomas

vsurpation : with the whole course of his detested life, and Creed, the same printer whó, in 1594. had produced from his

most deserued death. As it hath beene lately Acted by the press an edition of “The First Part of the Contention." In

Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. By 1Alphonsus' the hero kills Flaminius, his enemy, and thus

William Shake-speare. London Printed by Thomas Creede, addresses the dying man:

for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the “Go, pack thee hence unto the Stygian lake,

signe of the Angell. 1598." 4to. 47 leaves. And make report unto thy traitorous sire,

"The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his How well thou hast enjoy'd the diadem,

treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence; the pittifull Which he by treason set upon thy head :

murther of his innocent Nephewes : his tyrannicall vsurpaAnd if he ask thee who did send thee down, Alphonsus say, who now must wear thy crown.”

tion : with the whole course of his detested life, and most

deserued death. As it hath bene lately Acted by the Right In " The True Tragedy,' 1595, Richard, while stabbing

Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Newly Henry VI. a second time, exclaims,

augmented, By William Shakespeare. London Printed by “If any spark of life remain in thee,

Thomas Creede, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Down, down to hell; and say I sent thee thither."

Church-yard, at the signe of the Angell. 1602.” 4to. 46 Shakespeare, when altering - The True Tragedy" for his

leaves. own theatre, (for, as originally composed, it had been played

" The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his by the Earl of Pembroke's servants, for whom Greene was in

treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittifull the habit of writing) adopted the line,

murther of his innocent Nephewes : his tyrannicall vsurpa

tion : with the whole course of his detested life, and most “O tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a woman's hide,"

deserued death. As it hath bin lately Acted by the Right without the change of a letter, and the couplet last quoted Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Newly with only a very slight variation ;

augmented, by William Shake-speare. London, Printed “If any spark of life be yet remaining,

by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by Matthew Lawe, Down, down to hell; and say I sent thee thither.”

dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Foxe, As in 16 Henry VT » part ii Shalespeare availed himself near S. Austins gate, 1605." 4to. 46 leaves. of " The First Part of the Contention,, 1594, so in “Henry

In the folio of 1623, The Tragedy of Richard the Third : VI." part iii., he applied to his own purposes much of “The

with the Landing of the Earle of Richmond, and the BatTrue Tragedy of Richard Duke of York," 1595. He made,

tell at Bosworth Field,” occupies thirty-two pages; viz. however, considerable omissions, as well as large additions,

from p. 173 to p. 204 inclusive. There is no inaterial variaand in the last two Acts he sometimes varied materially from

tion in the later folios. the conduct of the story as he found it in the older play, One THE Popularity of Shakespeare's "Richard the Third" must improvement may be noticed, as it shows the extreme simpli- have been great, judging only from the various quarto editions city of our stage just before what we may consider Shake- which preceded the publication of it in the folio of 1623. It speare's time; and it is to be ascertained by comparing two originally came out in 1597, without the name of the author : scenes of his “Henry VI." part iii., (Act iv. sc. 2 and 3) with it was reprinted in 1598, with "by William Shake-speare' a portion of " The True Tragedy." In the older play, War- on the title-page, and again in 16022, ali three impressions wick, Oxford, and Clarence, aided by a party of soldiers, having been made for the same bookseller, Andrew Wise. standing on one part of the stage, concert a plan for surpris- On the 27th June, 1603, it was assigned to Mathew Lawe, as ing Edward IV. in his tent on another part of the stage. appears by an entry in the Stationers' Registers ; accordingly, Having resolved upon the enterprise, they merely cross the he published the fourth edition of it with the date of 1605; boards of Edward's encampment, the audience being required the fifth edition was printed for the same bookseller in 16133. to suppose that the assailing party had travelled from their This seerns to have been the last time it came out in quarto, own quarters in order to arrive at Edward's tent. Shake- anterior to its appearance in the first folio4; but after that speare showed his superior judgment by changing the place, date, three other quarto impressions are known, viz. in 1624, and by interposing a dialogue between the Watchmen, who 1629, and 1634, and it is remarkable that these were all mere guard the King's tent. Robert Greene, in his “Pinner of reprints of the earlier quartos, not one of them including any Wakefield," (See “Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the of the passages which the player-editors of the folio first inStage,” vol. iii. p. 368.) relied on the imagination of his audi- serted in their volume. This fact might show that the pubtors, exactly in the same way as the author of "The True lishers of the later quartos did not know that there were any Tragedy."

material variations between the earlier quartos and the folio, It is to be observed of “Henry VI." part iii., as was re- that they did not think them of importance, or that the promarked in the Introduction to the second part of the same jectors of the folio were considered to have some species of play, that a line, necessary to the sense, was omitted in the copyright in the additions. These additions, extending in folio, 1623, and has been introduced into our text from "The one instance to more than fifty lines, are pointed out in our True Tragedy," 1595. It occurs in Act ii. sc. 6, and it was, notes. It will also be found that more than one speech in probably, accidentally omitted by the copyist of the manu- the folio is unintelligible without aid from the quartos; and script from which Shakespeare's "history," as it appears in for some other characteristic omissions, particularly for one the folio, was printed.

in Act iv. sc. 2, it is not possible to account.

With respect to the additions in the folio of 1623, we have KING RICHARD III.

no means of ascertaining whether they formed part of the

original play. Stevens was of opinion that the quarto, 1597, "The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His contained a better text than the folio: such" is not our

treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence : the pittie- opinion; for though the quarto sets right several doubtful full murther of his innocent nephewes : his tyrannicall vsur- matters, it is not well printed, even for a production of that

1 There is a trifling fact connected with "Henry VI." part i, a no- a reprint of the previous impressions of 1597 and 1598, for the same tice of which ought not to be omitted, when considering the question bookseller. It is possible that the augmentations observable in the of the authorship of some yet undiscovered original, upon which that folio of 1623 were made shortly before 1602, and that Wise wished it play might be founded. In Act v. sc. 3, these two lines occur : to be thought, that his edition of that year contained them. The “She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd;

quarto reprints, subsequent to that of 1602, all purport to have been She is a woman, therefore to be won."

“newly augmented.” The last of these lines is inserted in Greene's "Planetomachia," 3 Malone gives the date 1612, and in his copy at Oxford the last printed as early as 1585. In "The First Part of the Contention" a figure is blurred. The title-page in no respect differs from that of pirate is mentioned, who is introduced into another of Greene's pro- | 1605, excepting that the play is said to have been “acted by the ductions.

King's Majesty's servants.” They were not so called, until after 2 By the title-pages of the four earliest editions on the opposite leaf, May, 1603. it will be seen, that it was professed by Andrew Wise, that the play. 4° An impression in 1622 is mentioned in some lists, but the existin 1602, had been “newly augmented," although it was in fact only lence of a copy of that date is doubtful.

[ocr errors]

day, and bears marks of having been brought out in haste, ng the death of Edward IV., and the whole story is thenceand from an imperfect manuscript. Tlie copy of the "his- forward most inartificially and clumsily conducted, with a tory' in the folio of 1623 was in some places a reprint of the total disregard of dates, facts, and places, by characters imquarto, 1602, as several obvious errors of the press are re- perfectly drawn and ill sustained. Shore's wife plays a conpeated, right for 6fight," helps for whelms," &c. For the ad- spicuous part; and the tragedy does not finish with the ditions, a manuscript was no doubt employed; and the va- battle of Bosworth Field, but is carried on subsequently, riations in some scenes, particularly near the middle of the although the plot is clearly at an end. The conclusion is play, are so numerous, and the corrections so frequent, that quite as remarkable as the commencement. After the death it is probable a transcript belonging to the theatre was there of Richard, Report (a personification like some of those in the consulted. Our text is that of the folio, with due notice of old Moralities) enters, and holds a dialogue with a Page, to all the chief variations.

588.

inform the audience of certain matters not exhibited; and The earliest entry in the Stationers' Registers relating to after a long scene between Richmond, the Queen mother, Shakespeare's 6 Richard the Third," is in these terms :— Princess Elizabeth, &c., two Messengers enter, and, mixing 66 20 Oct. 1597

with the personages of the play, detail the succession of Andrew Wise) The Tragedie of Kinge Richard the Third, events and of monarchs from the death of Richard until the with the death of the Duke of Clarence."

accession of Elizabeth. The Queen mother then comes forThis memorandum, probably, immediately preceded the ward, and pronounces an elaborate panegyric upon Elizabeth, publication of the quarto, 1597. The only other entry relat- ending with these lines :ing to " Richard the Third " we have already mentioned,

“For which, if ere her life be taen away, and the exact words of it may be seen in a note to our Intro

God grant her soule may live in heaven for aye ; duction to " Richard the Second."

For if her Graces dayes be brought to end, It is certain that there was a 'historical drama upon some

Your hope is gone, on whom did peace depend." of the events of the reign of Richard III. anterior to that of As in this sort of epilogue no allusion is made to tho Shakespeare. T. Wartoni quoted Sir John Harington's Spanish Armada, though other public events of less promi6 Apologie for Poetry," prefixed to his translation of Ariosto nence are touched upon, we may perhaps infer that the in 1691, respecting a tragedy of " Richard the Third tea drama was written befor at St. John's, Cambridge, which would “have moved Pha- The style in which it is composed also deserves observation: laris, the tyrant, and terrified all tyrannous-ininded men;" it is partly in prose, partly in heavy blank-verse, (such as and Steevens adduced Heywood's " Apology for Actors, was penned before Marlowe had introduced his improve1612, to the saine effect, without apparently being aware that ments, and Shakespeare had adopted and advanced them) Heywood was professedly only repeating the words of Har- partly in ten-syllable rhyming couplets, and stanzas, and ington. Both those authors, however, referred to a Latin partly in the long fourteen-syllable metre, which seems to drama on the story of Richard III., written by Dr. Legge, I have been popular even before prose was employed upon our and acted at Cambridge before 1583. Steevens followed up stage. In every point of view it inay be asserted, that few his quotation from Heywood by the copy of an entry in the more curious dramatic relics exist in our language. It is perStationers' Registers, dated June 19, 1594, relating to an haps the most ancient printed specimen of composition for a Englislı play on the same subject. When Steevens wrote, public theatre, of which the subject was derived from Engand for many years afterwards, it was not known that such a lish history, drama had ever been printed; but in 1821 Boswell reprinted Boswell asserts that "The True Tragedy of Richard the a large fragment of it (with many errors) from a copy want-Third” had "evidently been used and read by Shakespeare,' ing the commencement. A perfect copy of this very rare but we cannot trace any resemblances, but such as were proplay is in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, and from bably purely accidental, and are merely trivial. Two persons it we transcribe the following title-page:

could hardly take up the same period of our annals, as the "The true Tragedie of Richard the third : Wherein is ground-work of a drama, without some coincidences; but showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering there is no point, either in the conduct of the plot or in the of the two yoong Princes in the Tower : With a lamentable language in which it is clothed, where our great dramatist ende of Shore's wife, an example for all wicked women. does not show his measureless superiority. The portion of And lastly, the coniunction and ioyning of the two noble the story in which the two plays make the nearest approach Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the to each other, is just before the murder of the princes, where Queeues Maiesties Players,London Printed by Thomas Richard strangely takes a page into his confidence respecting Creede, and are to be sold by William Barley, at his shop in the fittest agent for the purpose. Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore. 1594.”

It is not to be concluded, because the title-page of " The This title-page so nearly corresponds with the entry in the True Tragedy of Richard the Third” expresses that it was Stationers? Registers, as to leave no doubt that the latter re- acted by the Queen's Majesty's Players," that it was the ferred to the former. The piece itself, as a literary composi association to which Shakespeare belonged, and which hetion, deserves little remark, but as a drama it possesses se- came the King's Plavers 91 after James I. ascended the veral peculiar features. It is in some respects unlike any throne. In 1583, the Queen selected a company from the relic of the kind, and was evidently written several years theatrical servants of several of her nobility ; (Hist. of Engl. before it came from Creede's press. It opens with a singular Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. 254;) and in 1590 there dialogue between Truth and Poetry :

were two companies, called “her Majesty's Players," one " Poetrie. Truth, well met.

under the management of Laneham, and the other of Lau6. Truth. Thankes, Poetrie : what makes thou upon a stage? rence Duttons. By one of these companies “The True Tra"Poet. Shadowes.'

gedy of Richard the Third" must have been performed. “Truth. Then, will I adde bodies to the shadowes.

Until the death of Elizabeth, the association to which ShakeTherefore depart, and give Truth leave To shew her pageant.

speare was attached was usually called “the Lord ClumberPoet. Why, will Truth be a Player ?

lain's Servants." " Truth. No; but Tragedia, like for to present

In the 66 Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," p. 121, it is shown A Tragedie in England done but late,

that Henslowe's company, subsequent to 1599, was either in That will revive the hearts of drooping mindes.

possession of a play upon the story of Richard III., or that Poet. Whereof?

some of the poets he employed were engaged upon such a " Truth. Marry, thus."

drama. From the sketch of five scenes, there inserted, we Hence Truth proceeds with a sort of argument of the play; I may judge that it was a distinct performance from " The but before the Induction begins, the ghost of George, Duke True Tragedy of Richard the Third." By an entry in Henof Clarence, had passed over the stage, delivering two lines slowe's Diary, dated 220 June, 1602, we learn that Ben Jonas he went, which we give precisely as in the original copy son received 107. in earnest of a play called “Richard Crooknow before us :

back," and for certain additions he was to make to Kyd's "Cresse cruor sanguinis, satietur sanguine cresse,. . Spanish Tragedy. Considering the success of Shakespeare's : Quod spero scitio. O scitio, scitio, vendicta!"

“Richard the Third," and the active contention, at certain The drama itself afterwards opens with a scene represent- periods, between the company to which Shakespeare be. 1 Stevens calls it "The Actors' Vindication," as indeed it was enti

with the Smotheringe of the twoo Princes in the Tower, with tled when it was republished (with alterations and insertions) by a lamentable End of Shores wife, and the conjunction of the Cartwright the Comedian, without date, but during the Civil Wars. twoo Houses of Lancaster and York. See the reprint of this tract by the Shakespeare Society, the text being 3 This new fact in the history of our early drama and theatres, we taken from the first impression.

oweto Mr. Peter Cunningham, who establishes it beyond contradic2 It is as follows, being rather unusually particular :

| tion, in his interesting and important volume of "Extracts from the Tho. Creede 'An Enterlude entitled the Tragedie of Richard Accounts of the Revels at Court," printed for the Shakespeare Son the Third, wherein is showen the Death of Edward the Fourthe, ciety. Introd. p. xxxii.

II.

« AnteriorContinuar »