tor of the 4to, 1599, strangely misunderstanding it, printed it | as follows: "Ile steale to Glendower and loe Mortimer;" as if Lo: of the 4to, 1598, were to be taken as the interjection, lo! then usually printed loe, and so the blunder was followed in the subsequent quartos, including that of 1613, from whence it was transferred, literatim, to the folio, 1623. The error is repeated in the folio, 1632; but Norton, the printer of the 4to, 1639, who, as has been remarked, did not adopt the text of either of the folios, saw that there must be a blunder in the line, and although he did not know exactly how to set it right, he at least made sense of it, by giving it, "I'll steal to Glendower and to Mortimer.” We only adduce this instance as one proof, out of many which might be brought forward, to establish the superiority of the text of the 4to. of 1598, to any of the subsequent reimpressions. SECOND PART OF KING HENRY IV. Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Millington, and Iohn Busby. And are to be sold at his house in Carter Lane, next the Powle head. 1600. 4to. 27 leaves. The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, With his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Together with Auntient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Thomas Pauier, and are to be sold at his shop in Cornhill, at the signe of the Cat and Parrets, neare the Exchange. 1602." 4to. 26 leaves. "The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Together with ancient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Printed for T. P. 1608." 4to. 27 leaves. "The Life of Henry the Fift," in the folio of 1623, occupies twenty-seven pages, viz. from p. 69 to p. 95 inclusive. The pagination from "Henry IV." Part ii. to "Henry V. " is not continued, but a new series begins with "Henry V." on p. 69, and is regularly followed to the end of the "Histories." The folio, 1632, adopts this error, but it is avoided in the two later folio impressions. Ir is a circumstance deserving remark, that not one of the title-pages of the quarto editions of "Henry V." attributes the authorship of the play to Shakespeare. It was printed three several times during the life of the poet, but in no instance with his name. The fact, no doubt, is, that there never was an authorized edition of "Henry V." until it appeared in the folio of 1623, and that the quarto impressions were surreptitious, and were published without the consent of the author, or of the company to which he was attached. They came out in 1600, 1602, and 1608, the one being merely a reprint of the other; and, considering the imperfectness and deficiency of the text in the quarto of 1600, it is perhaps strange that no improvements were made in the subsequent impressions. The drama must have enjoyed great popularity; it must have been played over and over again at the theatre, and yet the public interest, as far as perusal is concerned, would seem to have been satisfied with a brief, rude, and mutilated representation of the performance. The quartos can be looked upon in no other light than as fragments of the original play, printed in haste for the satisfaction of public curiosity. WE may state with more certainty than usual, that "Henry IV." Part ii. was written before the 25th Feb. 1598. In the preliminary notice of "Henry IV." Part i. it is mentioned, that Act ii. sc. 2, of the "history" before us contains a piece of evidence that Falstaff was still called Oldcastle when it was written; viz. that the prefix of Old. is retained in the quarto, 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 fraud: the earliest of them was not published by 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-issued; and the second and third came from the hands of tioners' Company on the 25th Feb. 1597-8. This circumstance Thomas Pavier, 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-internal evidence shows that the edition was made no concern, though ascribed to him on the title-page. The duced after "Richard II." because that play is quoted in it. The memorandum in the Stationers' Registers, prior to the publication of the following play, is inserted literatim in Vol. ii. p. 183: it bears date on 23d Aug. 1600, and it was made by Andrew Wise and William Aspley, who brought out "The Seconde Parte of the History of Kinge Henry the iiiith," 4to, in that year. There was only one edition of " Henry IV. " Part ii. in 1600, but some copies vary importantly. The play was evidently produced from the press in haste; and besides other large omissions, a whole scene, forming the commencement of Act iii. was left out. Most of the copies are without these pages, but they are found in those of the Duke of Devonshire and Malone. The stationer must have discovered the error after the publication, and sheet E was accordingly reprinted, in order to supply the defect. The folio 1623 was taken from a complete copy of the edition of 1600; and, moreover, the actor-editors, probably from a play-house manuscript in their hands, furnished many other lines wanting in the quarto. On the other hand, the quarto, 1600, contains several passages not found in the folio, 1623. Our text includes both, (properly distinguished in the notes) in order that no syllable which came from the pen of Shakespeare may be lost. Even if we suppose our great dramatist up, not from any authentic manuscript, nor even from any combination of the separate parts delivered out to the actors by the copyist of the theatre, but from what could be taken down in short-hand, or could be remembered, while the performance was taking place. It is true that the quarto impressions contain not the slightest hint of the Chorusses, nor of whole scenes, and long speeches, found in the folio of 1628: and the inference seems to be that "Henry V." was originally produced by Shakespeare in a comparatively incomplete state, and that large portions contained in the folio, and of which no trace can be pointed out in the quartos, were added at a subsequent date, to give greater novelty and attraction to the drama. Such, we know, was a very common course with all our early stage-poets. A play called "Henry V." was represented at Court on the 7th Jan. 1605, as we learn from "The Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels," edited by Mr. P. Cunningham, and printed by the Shakespeare Society, p. 204; and these important additions may have been inserted for that occasion. The entry runs, literatim, as follows: "On the 7 of January was played the play of Henry the fift." to have himself rejected certain portions, preserved in the stance given, although "Shaxber author is not in this in quarto, the exclusion of them by a modern editor would be unpardonable, as they form part of the history of the poet's mind. KING HENRY V. "The Cronicle History of Henry the fift, With his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient In the margin we are informed that it was acted by his Majesty's players, but the name of the author is not in this inis placed opposite the title of "Measure for Measure," stated to have been exhibited on a preceding night. The fact that the actors belonged 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, when the last edition of it made its appearance. Nevertheless, we may perhaps take it for granted, that the "Henry the fift," played at Whitehall by the king's servants, on 7th Jan. 1605, was Shakespeare's historical drama; and it may not be too much to presume, that most of the additions (Chorusses excepted) included in the folio of 1623, were written in consequence of the selection of "Henry V." by the Master of the Revels for representation before James I. Our opinion, then, is that Shakespeare did not originally write his "Henry V." by any means as we find it in the folio of 1623, and that it was first produced without various scenes and speeches subsequently written and introduced: we are perfectly convinced that the three quarto editions of 1600, 1602, and 1608 do not at all contain the play as it was acted in the first instance; but were hastily made up from notes taken at the theatre during the performance, subsequently patched together. Now and then we meet with a few consecutive lines, similar to the authentic copy, but in general the text is miserably mangled and disfigured. We might find proofs in support of our position in every part of the play, but as in his "Twenty quartos" Steevens has reprinted that of 1608, it will be needless to select more than a single specimen. We give the text as we find it, literatim, in the quarto, 1600, from the copy in the Library of the Duke of Devonshire: our extract is from Act i. sc. 2, the speech of the King, just before the French Ambassadors are called in : "Call in the messenger sent from the Dolphin, Eyther our Chronicles shal with full mouth speak Or else like toonglesse mutes Not worshipt with a paper epitaph." Such is the speech as it is abridged and corrupted in the quarto, 1600: the correct text, as contained in the folio of 1623, may be found in this edition. It not unfrequently happened that the person who took down the lines as the actors delivered them, for the purpose of publishing the quarto, 1600, misheard what was said, and used wrong words which in sound nearly resembled the right: thus, earlier in the same scene, the Archbishop of Canterbury says, according to the folio, 1623, "They of those Marches, gracious sovereign, Shall be a wall sufficient to defend Our inland from the pilfering borderers." In the quarto, 1600, the materials for which were probably surreptitiously obtained at the theatre, the passage is thus given: "The Marches, gracious soveraigne, shalbe sufficient To guard your England from the pilfering borderers." We might multiply instances of the same kind, but we do not think there can be any reasonable doubt upon the point. The quartos, as we have stated, contain no hint of the Chorusses, but a passage in that which precedes Act v. certainly relates to the expedition of the Earl of Essex to Ireland, between the 15th April and the 28th Sept. 1599, and must have been written during his absence:--- "As, by a lower but loving likelihood, THIS historical drama is first found in the folio of 1623: no earlier edition of it in any shape, or in any degree of imperfectness, has been discovered. Of the second and third parts of "Henry VI.," copies in quarto, under different titles, lengthened in some speeches, and abbreviated in others, are extant; but the first part of "Henry VI. " appeared originally in the collected edition of "Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies," put forth under the care of his fellow-actors, Heminge and Condell. This single fact is sufficient, in our mind, to establish Shakespeare's claim to the authorship of it, even were we to take Malone's assertion for granted (which we are by no means inclined to do) that the internal evidence is all opposed to that claim. When Heminge and Condell published the folio of 1623, many of Shakespeare's contemporaries, authors, actors, and auditors, were alive; and the player-editors, if they would have been guilty of the dishonesty, would hardly have committed the folly of inserting a play in their volume which was not his production, and perhaps well known to have been the work of some rival dramatist. If we imagine the frequenters of theatres to have been comparatively ignorant upon such a point, living authors and living actors must have been aware of the truth, and in the face of these Heminge and Condell would not have ventured to appropriate to Shakespeare what had really come from the pen of another. That tricks of the kind were sometimes played by fraudulent booksellers, in publishing single plays, is certainly true; but Heminge and Condell were actors of repute, and men of character: they were presenting to the world, in an important volume, scattered performances, in order to "keep the memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive, as was our Shakespeare, and we cannot believe that they would have included any drama to which he had no title. In all probability they had acted with Shakespeare in the first part of "Henry VI. :" they had received his instructions and directions from time to time with reference to the performance of it, and they must almost necessarily have been acquainted with the real state of the property in it. Our opinion is therefore directly adverse to that of Malone, who, having been "long struck with the many evident Shakespeareanisms in these plays, " afterwards came to the conclusion that he had been entirely mistaken, and that none of these peculiarities were to be traced in the first part of "Henry VI.:" "I am, therefore (he added), decisively of opinion, that this play was not written by Shakespeare." To support this notion, he published a "Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI.," in which he argued that the first part was not only not the authorship of Shakespeare, but that it was not written by the same persons who had composed the second and third parts of "Henry VI." Shakespeare became connected with the plays, known as the With reference to the question, how far and at what time three parts of "Henry VI.," it is necessary to observe, that it was very usual in the time of our great dramatist, for one poet to take up the production of another, and, by making additions to and improvements in it, to appropriate it to his own use, or to the use of the theatre to which he belonged. This practice applied to the works of living as well as of dead poets, and it has been conjectured that when Robert Greene, in his "Groatsworth of Wit," 1592, spoke of Shakespeare, as "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 baffle 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 the speare's name became associated with them as their author, play by Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, 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 summer of 1599. The enlarged drama, as it stands in the folio of 1628, we are disposed to believe was not put into the complete shape in which it has there come down to us, until shortly before the date when it was played at Court. Were now the general of our gracious empress FIRST PART OF KING HENRY VI. "The first Part of Henry the Sixt" was printed originally in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-four pages; viz. from p. 96 to p. 119 inclusive, in the division of Histories." It was reprinted in the folios 1682, 1664, and 1685. F There are two other theories respecting the elder plays we have mentioned, neither of them, as it seems to us, supported by sufficient testimony. One of them is, that the first part of "Henry VI.," as it is contained in the folio of 1623, the first part of the "Contention," 1594, and the "True Tragedy," 1595, were in fact productions by Shakespeare himself, which he subsequently enlarged and corrected: the other theory is, that the two latter were early editions of the same dramas that we find in the folio, and that the imperfections or variations in the quarto impressions are to be accounted for by the surreptitious manner in which the manuscript, from which they were printed, was obtained by the booksellers. In support of the first of these opinions, little Shakespeare's property, according to our present notions, was only in the additions and improvements he introduced, which are included in the folio of 1623. In Act. iv. sc. 1, is a line necessarily taken from "the first part of the Contention,' as the sense, without it, is incomplete; but the old play has many passages which Shakespeare rejected, and the murder of Duke Humphrey is somewhat differently managed. In general, however, Shakespeare adopted the whole conduct of the story, and did not think it necessary to correct the obvious historical errors of the original. 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, in some places the quarto editions of the first part of the "Contention" and the "True Tragedy" are fuller, by many lines, than the copy in the folio, 1623, which would hardly have been the case, had the dialogue been taken down in short-hand, and corrected by memory; in the next place, the speeches have such a degree of completeness and regularity as to render it very improbable that they were obtained by so uncertain and imperfect an expedient. We think it most likely that the first part of "Henry VI." was founded upon a previous play, although none such has been brought to light: and that the materials for the second and third parts of "Henry VI." were mainly derived from the older dramas of the first part of "The Contention betwixt the Two Famous 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, on the authority of Henslowe's Diary, that there was a play called "Harey the VI." acted on 3d March, 1591-2, and so popular as to have been repeated twelve times. This was, perhaps, the piece which Shakespeare subsequently altered and improved, and to which Nash alludes in his "Pierce Penniless," 1592 (sign. H. 2.), where he speaks of "brave Talbot" having been made "to triumph again on the stage," after having been two hundred years in his tomb. Malone (Shakespeare, by Boswell, vol. iii. p. 298.) concludes decisively in the affirmative on both these points, forgetting, however, that the "Harey the VI." acted by Henslowe's company, might possibly be a play got up and represented in consequence of the success of the drama in the authorship of which Shakespeare was concerned. If our great dramatist founded his first part of " Henry VI." upon the play produced by Henslowe's company, of course, it could not have been written until after March, 1592; but with regard to the precise date of its composition we must remain in uncertainty. Malone's later notion was, as we have already observed, that Shakespeare's hand was not to be traced in any part of it; but Steevens called attention to several remarkable coincidences of expression, and passages might be pointed out so much in the spirit and character of Shake speare, that we cannot conceive them to have come from any other pen. Coleridge has instanced the opening of the play as unlike Shakespeare's metre (Lit. Remains, vol. ii. p. 184.): he was unquestionably right; but he did not advert to the fact, of which there is the strongest presumptive evidence, that more than one author was engaged on the work. The very discordance of style forms part of the proof; and in his lectures in 1815, Coleridge adduced many lines which he believed must have been written by Shakespeare. SECOND PART OF KING HENRY VI. "The second Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Good Duke Hvmfrey," was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-seven pages; viz. from p. 120 to p. 146 inclusive, in the division of Histories." It fills the same place in the subsequent folio impressions. THE "history" is an alteration of a play printed in 1594, under the following title: "The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of lacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime unto the Crowne. London Printed by Thomas Creed, for Thomas Millington, and are to be sold at his shop under Saint Peter's Church in Cornwall. 1594." By whom it was written we have no information; but it was entered on the Stationers' Registers on the 12th March, 1598. Millington published a second edition of it in 1600: on the 19th April, 1602, it was assigned by Millington to Tho. Pavier, and we hear of it again, in the Stationers' Register, merely as "Yorke and Lancaster," on the 8th November, 1630. The name of Shakespeare was not connected with "the first part of the Contention," until about the year 1619, when T. P. (Thomas Pavier) printed a new edition of the first, and what he called "the second, part" of the same play, with the name of " William Shakspeare, Gent." upon the general title page. The object of Pavier was no doubt fraudulent: he It is impossible to assign a date to this play excepting by conjecture. Its success, perhaps, led to the entry at Stationers' Hall of the older play in March, 1593, and to its appearance from the press in 1594. THIRD PART OF KING HENRY VI. "The third Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Duke of Yorke," was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-six pages, in the division of " Histories," viz. from p. 147 to p. 172, inclusive, pages 165 and 166 being misprinted 167 and 168, so that these numbers are twice inserted. The error is corrected in the folio, 1632. The play is also contained in the folios of 1664 and 1685. NONE of the commentators ever saw the first edition of the drama upon which, we may presume, Shakespeare founded First Part of the Contention," 1594, nor of "The True Tra- In the Introduction to "Henry VI." part i., we alluded, as far as was there necessary, to the language of Greene, when speaking of Shakespeare in his "Groatsworth of Wit," 1592. This tract was not published until after the death of its author in Sept. 1592, when it appeared under the editorship of Henry Chettle1; and what follows is the whole that relates to our great dramatist :-"Yes, trust them not; for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the (Dyce's Edit. of Greene's Works, I. lxxxi.) In this extract, although Greene talks of "an upstart crow beautified with our feathers," he seems to have referred principally to his own works, and to the manner in which Shakespeare had availed himself of them. This opinion is somewhat confirmed by two lines in a tract called "Greene's Funerals," by R. B., 1594, where the writer is adverting to the obligations of other authors to Greene: "Nay more, the men that so eclips'd his fame Purloin'd his plumes-can they deny the same?" Here R. B. nearly adopts Greene's words, "beautified with our feathers," and applies to him individually what Greene, perhaps to avoid the charge of egotism and vanity, had stated more generally. It may be mentioned, also, as a confirmatory circumstance, that the words "tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a player's hide," in our extract from the "Groatsworth of Wit," are a repetition, with the omission of an interjection and 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 tractlication of Greene's attack upon him. the change of a word, of a line in "The True Tragedy," 1595, "O! tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a woman's hide." Thus Greene, when charging Shakespeare with having appropriated his plays, parodies a line of his own, as if to show the particular productions to which he alluded'. Another fact tends to the same conclusion: it is a striking coincidence between a passage in "The True Tragedy" and some lines in one of Greene's acknowledged dramas, "Alphonsus, King of Arragon," printed, in 1599, by Thomas Creed, the same printer who, in 1594, had produced from his press an edition of "The First Part of the Contention." In "Alphonsus" the hero kills Flaminius, his enemy, and thus addresses the dying man : "Go, pack thee hence unto the Stygian lake, And if he ask thee who did send thee down, In "The True Tragedy," 1595, Richard, while stabbing Henry VI. a second time, exclaims, "If any spark of life remain in thee, Down, down to hell; and say I sent thee thither.” Shakespeare, when altering "The True Tragedy" for his own theatre, (for, as originally composed, it had been played by the Earl of Pembroke's servants, for whom Greene was in the habit of writing) adopted the line, "O tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a woman's hide," without the change of a letter, and the couplet last quoted with only a very slight variation; "If any spark of life be yet remaining, Down, down to hell; and say I sent thee thither." As in "Henry VI." part ii., Shakespeare availed himself of "The First Part of the Contention," 1594, so in "Henry VI." part iii., he applied to his own purposes much of "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York," 1595. He made, however, considerable omissions, as well as large additions, and in the last two Acts he sometimes varied materially from the conduct of the story as he found it in the older play. One improvement may be noticed, as it shows the extreme simplicity of our stage just before what we may consider Shakespeare's time; and it is to be ascertained by comparing two scenes of his "Henry VI." part iii., (Act iv. sc. 2 and 3) with a portion of “The True Tragedy." In the older play, Warwick, Oxford, and Clarence, aided by a party of soldiers, standing on one part of the stage, concert a plan for surprising Edward IV. in his tent on another part of the stage. Having resolved upon the enterprise, they merely cross the boards of Edward's encampment, the audience being required to suppose that the assailing party had travelled from their own quarters in order to arrive at Edward's tent. Shakespeare showed his superior judgment by changing the place, and by interposing a dialogue between the Watchmen, who guard the King's tent. Robert Greene, in his "Pinner of Wakefield," (See "Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage," vol. iiì. p. 368.) relied on the imagination of his auditors, exactly in the same way as the author of "The True Tragedy." It is to be observed of "Henry VI." part iii., as was remarked in the Introduction to the second part of the same play, that a line, necessary to the sense, was omitted in the folio, 1623, and has been introduced into our text from "The True Tragedy," 1595. It occurs in Act ii. sc. 6, and it was, probably, accidentally omitted by the copyist of the manuscript from which Shakespeare's "history," as it appears in the folio, was printed. KING RICHARD III. pation 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." 4to. 47 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pitiful 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. By William Shake-speare. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Angell. 1598." 4to. 47 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittifull murther of his innocent Nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath bene lately Acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Newly augmented, By William Shakespeare. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Angell. 1602." 4to. 46 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittifull murther of his innocent Nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath bin lately Acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare. London, Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by Matthew Lawe, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Foxe, near S. Austins gate, 1605." 4to. 46 leaves. In the folio of 1623, "The Tragedy of Richard the Third : with the Landing of the Earle of Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field," occupies thirty-two pages; viz. from p. 173 to p. 204 inclusive. There is no material variation in the later folios. THE popularity of Shakespeare's "Richard the Third" must have been great, judging only from the various quarto editions which preceded the publication of it in the folio of 1628. It originally came out in 1597, without the name of the author: it was reprinted in 1598, with "by William Shake-speare" on the title-page, and again in 16022, all three impressions having been made for the same bookseller, Andrew Wise. On the 27th June, 1603, it was assigned to Mathew Lawe, as appears by an entry in the Stationers' Registers; accordingly, he published the fourth edition of it with the date of 1605: the fifth edition was printed for the same bookseller in 16133. This seems to have been the last time it came out in quarto, anterior to its appearance in the first folio; but after that date, three other quarto impressions are known, viz. in 1624, 1629, and 1634, and it is remarkable that these were all mere reprints of the earlier quartos, not one of them including any of the passages which the player-editors of the folio first inserted in their volume. This fact might show that the publishers of the later quartos did not know that there were any material variations between the earlier quartos and the folio, that they did not think them of importance, or that the projectors of the folio were considered to have some species of copyright in the additions. These additions, extending in one instance to more than fifty lines, are pointed out in our notes. It will also be found that more than one speech in the folio is unintelligible without aid from the quartos; and for some other characteristic omissions, particularly for one in Act iv. sc. 2, it is not possible to account. With respect to the additions in the folio of 1623, we have no means of ascertaining whether they formed part of the original play. Stevens was of opinion that the quarto, 1597, contained a better text than the folio: such is not our opinion; for though the quarto sets right several doubtful "The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull 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 notice of which ought not to be omitted, when considering the question of the authorship of some yet undiscovered original, upon which that play might be founded. In Act v. sc. 3, these two lines occur:"She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd; She is a woman, therefore to be won.' The last of these lines is inserted in Greene's "Planetomachia," printed as early as 1585. In "The First Part of the Contention" a pirate is mentioned, who is introduced into another of Greene's productions. 2 By the title-pages of the four earliest editions on the opposite leaf, it will be seen, that it was professed by Andrew Wise, that the play in 1602, had been "newly augmented," although it was in fact only a reprint of the previous impressions of 1597 and 1598, for the same bookseller. It is possible that the augmentations observable in the folio of 1623 were made shortly before 1602, and that Wise wished it to be thought, that his edition of that year contained them. The quarto reprints, subsequent to that of 1602, all purport to have been newly augmented." 3 Malone gives the date 1612, and in his copy at Oxford the last figure is blurred. The title-page in no respect differs from that of 1605, excepting that the play is said to have been "acted by the King's Majesty's servants." They were not so called, until after May, 1603. 4 An impression in 1622 is mentioned in some lists, but the existence of a copy of that date is doubtful. day, and bears marks of having been brought out in haste, and from an imperfect manuscript. The copy of the "history" in the folio of 1623 was in some places a reprint of the quarto, 1602, as several obvious errors of the press are repeated, right for "fight," helps for "helms," &c. For the additions, a manuscript was no doubt employed; and the variations in some scenes, particularly near the middle of the play, are so numerous, and the corrections so frequent, that it is probable a transcript belonging to the theatre was there consulted. Our text is that of the folio, with due notice of all the chief variations. The earliest entry in the Stationers' Registers relating to Shakespeare's "Richard the Third," is in these terms:"20 Oct. 1597 Andrew Wise] The Tragedie of Kinge Richard the Third, with the death of the Duke of Clarence." This memorandum, probably, immediately preceded the publication of the quarto, 1597. The only other entry relating to "Richard the Third" we have already mentioned, and the exact words of it may be seen in a note to our Introduction to "Richard the Second." It is certain that there was a 'historical drama upon some of the events of the reign of Richard III. anterior to that of Shakespeare. T. Warton quoted Sir John Harington's "Apologie for Poetry," prefixed to his translation of Ariosto in 1591, respecting a tragedy of "Richard the Third," acted at St. John's, Cambridge, which would "have moved Phalaris, the tyrant, and terrified all tyrannous-minded men;" and Steevens adduced Heywood's "Apology for Actors"," 1612, to the same effect, without apparently being aware that Heywood was professedly only repeating the words of Harington. Both those authors, however, referred to a Latin drama on the story of Richard III., written by Dr. Legge, and acted at Cambridge before 1583. Steevens followed up his quotation from Heywood by the copy of an entry in the Stationers' Registers, dated June 19, 1594, relating to an English play on the same subject. When Steevens wrote, and for many years afterwards, it was not known that such a drama had ever been printed; but in 1821 Boswell reprinted a large fragment of it (with many errors) from a copy wanting the commencement. A perfect copy of this very rare play is in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, and from it we transcribe the following title-page: "The true Tragedie of Richard the third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore's wife, an example for all wicked women. And lastly, the coniunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. London Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by William Barley, at his shop in Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore. 1594." ng the death of Edward IV., and the whole story is thenceforward most inartificially and clumsily conducted, with a total disregard of dates, facts, and places, by characters imperfectly drawn and ill sustained. Shore's wife plays a conspicuous part; and the tragedy does not finish with the battle of Bosworth Field, but is carried on subsequently, although the plot is clearly at an end. The conclusion is quite as remarkable as the commencement. After the death of Richard, Report (a personification like some of those in the old Moralities) enters, and holds a dialogue with a Page, to inform the audience of certain matters not exhibited; and after a long scene between Richmond, the Queen mother, Princess Elizabeth, &c., two Messengers enter, and, mixing with the personages of the play, detail the succession of events and of monarchs from the death of Richard until the accession of Elizabeth. The Queen mother then comes forward, and pronounces an elaborate panegyric upon Elizabeth, ending with these lines: "For which, if ere her life be taen away, God grant her soule may live in heaven for aye; Your hope is gone, on whom did peace dépend." As in this sort of epilogue no allusion is made to the Spanish Armada, though other public events of less prominence are touched upon, we may perhaps infer that the drama was written before the year 1588. The style in which it is composed also deserves observation: it is partly in prose, partly in heavy blank-verse, (such as was penned before Marlowe had introduced his improvements, and Shakespeare had adopted and advanced them) partly in ten-syllable rhyming couplets, and stanzas, and partly in the long fourteen-syllable metre, which seems to have been popular even before prose was employed upon our stage. In every point of view it may be asserted, that few more curious dramatic relics exist in our language. It is haps the most ancient printed specimen of composition for a public theatre, of which the subject was derived from English history. per Boswell asserts that "The True Tragedy of Richard the Third" had "evidently been used and read by Shakespeare,” but we cannot trace any resemblances, but such as were probably purely accidental, and are merely trivial. Two persons could hardly take up the same period of our annals, as the ground-work of a drama, without some coincidences; but there is no point, either in the conduct of the plot or in the language in which it is clothed, where our great dramatist does not show his measureless superiority. The portion of the story in which the two plays make the nearest approach to each other, is just before the murder of the princes, where Richard strangely takes a page into his confidence respecting the fittest agent for the purpose. 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 betion, deserves little remark, but as a drama it possesses se- came "the King's Players" after James I. ascended the veral peculiar features. It is in some respects unlike any relic of the kind, and was evidently written several years before it came from Creede's press. It opens with a singular dialogue between Truth and Poetry: "Poetrie. Truth, well met. "Truth. Thankes, Poetrie: what makes thou upon a stage? "Poet. Shadowes. "Truth. Then, will I adde bodies to the shadowes. Therefore depart, and give Truth leave To shew her pageant. Poet. Why, will Truth be a Player? "Truth. No; but Tragedia, like for to present A Tragedie in England done but late, That will revive the hearts of drooping mindes. "Poet. Whereof? "Truth. Marry, thus." Hence Truth proceeds with a sort of argument of the play; but before the Induction begins, the ghost of George, Duke of Clarence, had passed over the stage, delivering two lines as he went, which we give precisely as in the original copy now before us: "Cresse cruor sanguinis, satietur sanguine cresse, throne. In 1588, the Queen selected a company from the theatrical servants of several of her nobility; (Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. 254;) and in 1590 there were two companies, called "her Majesty's Players," one under the management of Laneham, and the other of Laurence Dutton3. By one of these companies "The True Tragedy of Richard the Third" must have been performed. Until the death of Elizabeth, the association to which Shakespeare was attached was usually called "the Lord Chamberlain's Servants." In the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," p. 121, it is shown that Henslowe's company, subsequent to 1599, was either in possession of a play upon the story of Richard III., or that some of the poets he employed were engaged upon such a drama. From the sketch of five scenes, there inserted, we may judge that it was a distinct performance from "The True Tragedy of Richard the Third." By an entry in Henslowe's Diary, dated 22d June, 1602, we learn that Ben Jonson received 107. in earnest of a play called "Richard Crookback," and for certain additions he was to make to Kyd's Spanish Tragedy. Considering the success of Shakespeare's "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 entitled when it was republished (with alterations and insertions) by Cartwright the Comedian, without date, but during the Civil Wars. See the reprint of this tract by the Shakespeare Society, the text being taken from the first impression. 2 It is as follows, being rather unusually particular:- Tho. Creede] An Enterlude entitled the Tragedie of Richard the Third, wherein is showen the Death of Edward the Fourthe, with the Smotheringe of the twoo Princes in the Tower, with a lamentable End of Shores wife, and the conjunction of the twoo Houses of Lancaster and York. + 3 This new fact in the history of our early drama and theatres, we owe to Mr. Peter Cunningham, who establishes it beyond contradiction, in his interesting and important volume of "Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court," printed for the Shakespeare Society. Introd. p. xxxii. |