If the following fhould be confidered as a trifling circumftance, let it be remembered, that circumftances which, feparately confidered, may appear unimportant, fometimes acquire ftrength, when united to other proofs of more efficacy: in my opinion, however, what I fhall now mention is a circumftance of confiderable weight. It is obfervable that the prieft concerned with Eleanor Cobham Dutchess of Glocefter, in certain pretended operations of magick, for which she was tried, is called by Hall, John Hum. So is he named in The first part of the Contention of the two Houfes of Yorke, &c. the original, as I fuppofe, of The Second Part of K. Henry VI. Our author probably thinking the name harsh or ridiculous, foftened it to Hume; and by that name this prieft is called in bis play printed in folio. But in Holinfhed he is named Hun; and fo undoubtedly, or perhaps for foftnefs, Hune, he would have been called in the original quarto play juft mentioned, if Shakfpeare had been the author of it; for Holinfhed and not Hall was his guide, as I have fhewn inconteftably in a note on King Henry V. Vol. V. p. 40. But Hall was undoubtedly the hiftorian who had been confulted by the original writer of The Contention of the two Houfes of Yorke and Lancaster; as appears from his having taken a line from thence, "That Alexander Iden, an efquire of Kent" and from the scene in which Cardinal Beaufort is exhibited on his death-bed. One part of the particular defcription of the Cardinal's death and dying words, in the old quarto play, is founded on a paffage in Hall, which Holinfhed, though in general a fervile copyift of the former chronicler, has omitted. The paffage is this. "Dr. John Baker, his pryvie counfailer and hys chapellayn, wrote, that lying on his death-bed he [Cardinal Beaufort] faid these words: Why fhould I dye, havyng fo much riches? If the whole realme would fave my lyfe, I am able either by pollicie to get it, or by ryches to bye it. Fye! will not death be hyered, nor will money

See Hall, Henry V. fol. lxxix. Holinfhed fays, "a gentleman of Kent, named Alexander Iden, awaited so his time," &c.

do

do nothynge?" From this the writer of the old play form ed thefe lines:

O death, if thou will let me live

But one whole year, I'll give thee as much gold
As will purchafe fuch another ifland.

which Shakspeare new-modelled thus:

If thou be'ft death, I'll give thee England's treafure,
Enough to purchase fuch another island,

So thou wilt let me live, and feel no pain.

If Shakspeare had been the author of The first part of the Contention, &c. finding in his Holinfhed the name Hun, he would either have preferved it, or softened it to Hune. Working on the old play, where he found the name of Hum, which founded ridiculous to his ear, he changed it to Hume. But whoever the original writer of the old play was, having ufed the name of Hum, he must have formed his play on Hall's Chronicle, where alone that name is found. Shakspeare therefore having made Holinfhed, and not Hall, his guide, could not have been the writer of it.

It may be remarked, that by the alteration of this priest's name he has destroyed a rhyme intended by the author of the original play, where Sir John begins a foliloquy with this jingling line:

"Now, Sir John Hum, no word but mum :
"Seal up your lips, for you must filent be.”

which Shakspeare has altered thus:

But how now, Sir John Hume?

"Seal up your lips, and give no words but mum.

Lines rhiming in the middle and end, fimilar to that above quoted, are often found in our old English plays, (previous to the time of Shakspeare,) and are generally put into the mouths of priests and friars.

It has already been obferved, that in the original play on which The Second Part of King Henry VI. is founded, "Abradas, the Macedonian pirate," is mentioned.

This

This hero does not appear in Shakspeare's new-modelled play, "Bargulus, the ftrong Illyrian pirate," being introduced in his room. Abradas is fpoken of (as Mr. Steevens has remarked) by Robert Greene, the very person whom I fuppofe to have been one of the joint authors of the original plays, in a pamphlet, entitled Penelope's Web, 1589:- Abradas, the great Macedonean pirate, thought every one had a letter of mart that bare fayles in the ocean." Of this pirate or his atchievements, however celebrated he may have been, I have not found the flightest trace in any book whatfoever, except that above quoted: a fingular circumftance, which appears to me ftrongly to confirm my hypothefis on the prefent fubject; and to fupport my interpretation of Greene's words in his Groatworth of Witte, in a former part of the prefent difquifition.

However this may be, there are certainly very good grounds for believing that The first part of the Contention of the tavo houfes of York and Lancafter, &c. and the True Tragedie of Richarde duke of Yorke, &c. were written by the author or authors of the old King John, printed in 1591. In The true Tragedie, &c. we find the following lines: "Let England be true within itself,

"We need not France, nor any alliance with her." The first of thefe lines is found, with a very minute variation, in the old King John, where it runs thus:

"Let England live but true within itself,-".

Nor is this the only coincidence. In the defervedly admired scene in which Cardinal Beaufort's death is reprefented, in the original play, (as well as in Shakspeare's Second Part of King Henry VI.) he is called upon to hold up his hand, as a proof of his confidence in God:

"Lord Cardinal,

"If thou dieft affured of heavenly bliffe,
"Hold up thy hand, and make fome fign to us.
[The Cardinal dies.
"O fee, he dies, and makes no fign at all:
"O God, forgive his foule !"

I quote

I quote from the original play.-It is remarkable that a fimilar proof is demanded in the old play of King John alfo, when that king is expiring:

Then, good my lord, if you forgive them all, "Lift up your hand, in token you forgive."

in token of thy faith,

"And figne thou dieft the fervant of the Lord,
"Lift up thy hand, that we may witnesse here
"Thou dieft the fervant of our Saviour Christ.➡
"Now joy betide thy foul!"

This circumftance appears to me to add confiderable fupport to my conjecture.

One point only remains. It may be asked, if The First Part of King Henry VI. was not written by Shakspeare, why did Heminge and Condell print it with the rest of his works? The only way that I can account for their having done fo, is by fuppofing, either that their memory at the end of thirty years was not accurate concerning our author's pieces, (as appears indeed evidently from their omitting Troilus and Creffida, which was not recollected by them, till the whole of the firft folio, and even the table of contents, (which is always the laft work of the prefs,) had been printed; or, that they imagined the infertion of this hiftorical drama was neceffary to understanding the two pieces that follow it; or laftly, that, Shakspeare, for the advantage of his own theatre, having written a few lines in The First Part of King Henry VI. after his own Second and Third Part had been played, they conceived this a fufficient warrant for attributing it, along with the others, to him, in the general collection of his works. If Shakspeare was the author of any part of this play, perhaps the fecond and the following fcenes of the fourth act were his; which are for the most part written in rhyme, and appear to me fomewhat of a different complexion from the reft of the play. Nor is this the only inftance of their proceeding on this ground; for is it poffible to conceive that they could

have any other reafon for giving Titus Andronicus a place in their edition of Shakspeare's works, than his having written twenty or thirty lines in that piece, or having retouched a few verses of it, if indeed he did fo much?

Shakspeare's referring in the Epilogue to K. Henry V. which was produced in 1599, to these three parts of King Henry VI. of which the first, by whom foever it was written, appears from the testimony of a contemporary to have been exhibited with great applause 7; and the two latter, having been, as I conceive, eight years before new-modelled and almoft re-written by our author, we may be confident were performed with the most brilliant fuccefs; his fupplicating the favour of the audience to his new play of King Henry V. " for the fake" of these old and popular dramas, which were fo closely connected with it, and in the compofition of which, as they had for many years been exhibited, he had fo confiderable a fhare; the connexion between the last scene of King Henry VI. and the firft scene of K. Richard III.; the Shakspearian diction, verfification, and figures, by which the Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. are diftinguished; the eafinefs of expreffion and the fluency of numbers," which, it is acknowledged, are found here, and were pofeffed by no other author of that age; all these circumstances are accounted for by the theory now ftated, and all the objections that have been founded upon them, in my apprehenfion, vanish away.

On the other hand, the entry on the Stationers' books of the old play, entitled The first part of the Contention of the two houfes of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. without the name of the author; that piece, and The true Tragedie of Richarde duke of Yorke, &c. being printed in 1600, anonymously; their being founded on the Chronicle of Hall, who was not Shakspeare's hiftorian, and reprefented by the fervants of Lord Pembroke, by whom

7 See p. 390, of this Differtation.

8 See thefe feveral objections ftated by Dr. Johnson in the notes at the end of The Third Part of King Henry VI.

none