Hình ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

and Sir John Conyers, on the part of King Henry; in which the Lancaftrians were defeated.

KILLED-5009. The Earl of Pembroke and his brother, Richard Widville Earl of Rivers, father to King Edward's Queen, Sir John Widville, John Tiptoft Earl of Worcester, the Lords Willoughby, Stafford, and Wells, were taken prisoners, and foon afterwards beheaded.

13. THE BATTLE OF STAMFORD, in Lincolnshire, October 1, 1469, between Sir Robert Wells and King Edward; in which the former was defeated and taken prifoner. The vanquished who fled, in order to lighten themselves threw away their coats, whence the place of combat was called Lofecoatfield.

KILLED-10,000.

14. THE BATTLE OF BARNET, on Eafter-Sunday, April 14, 1471, between King Edward on one fide, and the Earl of Warwick, the Marquis of Montague, and the Earl of Oxford, on the part of King Henry VI. in which the Lancaftrians were defeated.

KILLED-10,300; among whom were the Earl of Warwick, the Marquis of Montague, the Lord Cromwell, and the fon and heir of Lord Say.

In a letter which was written at London four days after the battle of Barnet, the total number killed on both fides is faid to have been "more than a thousand." Pafton Letters, Vol. II. p. 65. Fabian, the nearest contemporary historian, says

1500.

The custom among our old writers of using Arabick numerals, has been the cause of innumerable errors, the carelessness of a tranfcriber or printer by the addition of a cipher converting hundreds into thousands. From the inaccuracy in the present instance we have ground to suspect that the numbers faid to have fallen in the other battles between the houfes of York and Lancafter, have been exaggerated. Sir John Pafton who was him felf at the battle of Barnet, was probably correct.

15. THE BATTLE OF TEWKSBURY, May 3, 1471, between King Edward and Queen Margaret, in which the Queen was defeated, and the and her fon Prince Edward were taken prifoners.

On the next day the Prince was killed by King Edward and his brothers, and Edmond Duke of Somerset beheaded.

KILLED-3,032. Shortly afterwards, in an action between the bastard fon of Lord Falconbridge and fome Londoners, 1092 perfons were killed.

16. THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH, in Leicestershire, August 22, 1485, betweeen King Richard III. and Henry Earl of Richmond,

afterwards King Henry VII. in which King Richard was defeated and flain.

KILLED, on the part of Richard, 4,013, among whom were John Duke of Norfolk, and Walter Lord Ferrers; on the part of Richmond, 181.

THE TOTAL NUMBER of perfons who fell in this conteft, was NINETY-ONE THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX. MALONE.

The three parts of King Henry VI. are fufpected, by Mr. Theobald, of being fuppofititious, and are declared, by Dr. Warburton, to be certainly not Shakfpeare's. Mr. Theobald's fufpicion arifes from fome obfolete words; but the phrafeology is like the reft of our author's ftyle, and fingle words, of which however I do not obferve more than two, can conclude little.

Dr. Warburton gives no reafon, but I fuppofe him to judge upon deeper principles and more comprehenfive views, and to draw his opinion from the general effect and fpirit of the compofition, which he thinks inferior to the other hiftorical plays.

From mere inferiority nothing can be inferred; in the productions of wit there will be inequality. Sometimes judgment will err, and fometimes the matter itself will defeat the artifl. Of every author's works one will be the beft, and one will be the worft. The colours are not equally pleafing, nor the attitudes equally graceful, in all the pictures of Titian or Reynolds.

Diffimilitude of ftyle and heterogeneoufnefs of fentiment, may fufficiently show that a work does not really belong to the reputed author. But in thefe plays no fuch marks of fpurioufnefs are found. The diction, the verfification, and the figures, are Shakfpeare's. These plays, confidered, without regard to characters and incidents, merely as narratives in verfe, are more happily conceived, and more accurately finished than thofe of K. John, Richard II. or the tragick scenes of King Henry IV. and V. If we take these plays from Shakspeare, to whom fhall they be given? What author of that age had the fame eafiness of expreffion and fluency of numbers?

Having confidered the evidence given by the plays themselves, and found it in their favour, let us now enquire what corroboration can be gained from other teftimony. They are afcribed to Shakspeare by the firft editors, whofe atteftation may be received in queftions of fact, however unfkilfully they fuperintended their edition. They feem to be declared genuine by the voice of Shakspeare himself, who refers to the fecond play in his epilogue to King Henry V. and apparently connects the firft A&t of King Richard III. with the laft of The Third Part of King Henry VI. If it be objected that the plays were popular, and

that therefore he alluded to them as well known; it may be anfwered, with equal probability, that the natural paffions of a poet would have difpofed him to feparate his own works from those of an inferior hand. And, indeed, if an author's own teftimony is to be overthrown by speculative criticism, no man can be any longer fecure of literary reputation.

Of these three plays I think the fecond the beft. The truth is, that they have not fufficient variety of action, for the incidents are too often of the fame kind; yet many of the characters are well difcriminated. King Henry, and his Queen, King Edward, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Earl of Warwick, are very ftrongly and diftinétly painted.

The old copies of the two latter parts of King Henry VI. and of King Henry V. are fo apparently imperfect and mutilated, that there is no reason for fuppofing them the first draughts of Shakspeare. I am inclined to believe them copies taken by fome auditor who wrote down, during the representation, what the time would permit, then perhaps filled up fome of his omiffions at a fecond or third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed fomething like a play, fent it to the printer.

JOHNSON. So, Heywood, in the Preface to his Rape of Lucrece, (fourth impreffion,) 1630:

[ocr errors]

-for though fome have used a double fale of their labours, first to the ftage and after to the prefs, for my own part I here proclaim myself ever faithful to the firft, and never guilty of the laft yet fince fome of my plays have (unknown to me, and without any of my direction,) accidentally come into the printer's hands, and therefore fo corrupt and mangled (copied only by the ear,) that I have been as unable to know them as afhamed to challenge them, this therefore I was the willinger," &c. COLLINS.

There is another circumstance which may ferve to strengthen Dr. Johnfon's fuppofition, viz. that most of the fragments of › Latin verses, omitted in the quartos, are to be found in the folio; and when any of them are inserted in the former, they are fhamefully corrupted and misfpelt. The auditor, who underftood English, might be unskilled in any other language.

STEEVENS.

I formerly coincided with Dr. Johnson on this subject, at a time when I had examined the two old plays publifhed in quarto under the title of The Whole Contention of the Two famous Houfes of York and Lancaster, in two parts, with lefs attention than I have lately done. That dramas were fometimes imperfectly taken down in the theatre, and afterwards published in a

mutilated state, is proved decifively by the prologue to a play entitled, If you know not Me you know Nobody, by Thomas Heywood, 1623:

[ocr errors][merged small]

"And yet receiv'd as well perform'd at first;
"Grac'd and frequented; for the cradle age
"Did throng the feats, the boxes, and the stage,
"So much, that fome by Stenography drew
"The plot, put it in print, scarce one word true:
"And in that lamenefs it has limp'd fo long,
"The author now, to vindicate that wrong,
"Hath took the pains upright upon its feet

"To teach it walk; so please you, fit and fee it." But the old plays in quarto, which have been hitherto fuppofed to be imperfect reprefentations of the fecond and third parts of King Henry VI. are by no means mutilated and imperfect. The fcenes are as well connected, and the verfification as correct, as that of moft 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 diftin&t Effay on the fubject.

MALONE.

I have already given some reasons, why I cannot believe, that thefe plays were originally written by Shakspeare. The queftion, who did write them? is, at beft, 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 himself. The Chorus at the end of King Henry V. addreffes the audience

[ocr errors]

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 success 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 fo, could be his only motive for inferring benefit to himself from the fpectator's recollection of their paft fuccefs. For the fake of three historical dramas of mine which have already afforded you entertainment, let me (fays he) intreat your indulgence to a fourth. Surely this was a ftronger 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 course of three of those 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 stage.

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 fuch 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 address 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 guess 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 fiay as the

« TrướcTiếp tục »