mutilated ftate, is proved decifively by the prologue to a play entitled, If you know not Me you know Nobody, by Thomas Heywood, 1623: 'Twas ill nurft, "And yet receiv'd as well perform'd at firft; "To teach it walk; fo please you, fit and fee it.” But the old plays in quarto, which have been hitherto supposed to be imperfect representations of the fecond and third parts of King Henry VI. are by no means mutilated and imperfect. The scenes are as well connected, and the versification as correct, as that of most of the other dramas of that time. The fact therefore, which Heywood's Prologue afcertains, throws no light upon the prefent contefted queftion. Such obfervations as I have made upon it, I fhall fubjoin in a diftinct Effay on the fubject. MALONE. I have already given fome reasons, why I cannot believe, that thefe plays were originally written by Shakspeare. The question, who did write them? is, at best, but an argument ad ignorantiam. We must remember, that very many old plays are anonymous; and that play-writing was fcarcely yet thought reputable: nay, fome authors exprefs for it great horrors of repentance. I will attempt, however, at fome future time, to answer this question: the difquifition of it would be too long for this place. One may at leaft argue, that the plays were not written by Shakspeare, from Shakspeare himfelf. The Chorus at the end of King Henry V. addreffes the audience 66 For their fake, "In your fair minds let this acceptance take." But it could be neither agreeable to the poet's judgment or his modefty, to recommend his new play from the merit and fuccefs of King Henry VI.-His claim to indulgence is, that, though bending and unequal to the talk, he has ventured to pursue the Story: and this fufficiently accounts for the connection of the whole, and the allufions of particular paffages. FARMER. It is feldom that Dr. Farmer's arguments fail to enforce conviction; but here, perhaps, they may want fomewhat of their ufual weight. I think that Shakspeare's bare mention of these pieces is a fufficient proof they were his. That they were so, could be his only motive for inferring benefit to himself from the fpectator's recollection of their paft fuccefs. For the sake of three hiftorical dramas of mine which have already afforded you entertainment, let me (fays he) intreat your indulgence to a fourth. Surely this was a stronger plea in his behalf, than any arifing from the kind reception which another might have already met with in the fame way of writing. Shakspeare's claim to favour is founded on his having previously given pleasure in the courfe of three of thofe hiftories; because he is a bending, fupplicatory author, and not a literary bully, like Ben Jonfon; and because he has ventured to exhibit a series of annals in a fuite of plays, an attempt which till then had not received the fanction of the ftage. I hope Dr. Farmer did not wish to exclude the three dramas before us, together with The Taming of the Shrew, from the number of those produced by our author, on account of the Latin quotations to be found in them. His proofs of Shakfpeare's want of learning are too ftrong to ftand in need of such a fupport. STEEVENS. Though the objections which have been raised to the genuinenefs of the three plays of Henry the Sixth have been fully confidered and answered by Dr. Johnson, it may not be amifs to add here, from a contemporary writer, a paffage, which not only points at Shakspeare as the author of them, but also shows, that, however meanly we may now think of them in comparison with his latter productions, they had, at the time of their appearance, a fufficient degree of excellence to alarm the jealoufy of the older play-wrights. The paffage, to which I refer, is in a pamphlet, entitled, Greene's Groatsworth of Witte, fuppofed to have been written by that voluminous author, Robert Greene, M. A. and faid, in the title-page, to be published at his dying request; probably about 1592. The conclufion of this piece is an addrefs to his brother poets, to diffuade them from writing any more for the ftage, on account of the ill treatment which they were used to receive from the players. It begins thus: To thofe gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making playes, R. G. wifheth a better exercife, &c. After having addreffed himself particularly to Chriftopher Marlowe and Thomas Lodge, (as I guefs from circumftances, for their names are not mentioned ;) he goes on to a third, (perhaps George Peele ;) and having warned him againft depending on fo mean a flay as the players, he adds: Yes, truft them not; for there is an upfiart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his tygres head wrapt in a players hyde, fuppofes hee is as well able to bombafte out a blanke verfe as the best of you; and being an abfolute Johannes fac totum is, in his own conceit, the onely Shake-fcen in a countrey. There can be no doubt, I think, that Shake-fcene alludes to Shakspeare; or that his tygres head wrapt in a players hyde, is a parodie upon the following line of York's fpeech to Margaret, Third Part of King Henry VI. A& I. fc. iv: "Oh tygres heart, wrapt in a woman's hide." TYRWHITT. |