H́nh ảnh trang

King Richard III. he was under a neceffity of carefully examining the English chronicles; and in that play, A&t I. sc. iii. he has reprefented this matter truly as it was:

"In all which time, you, and your husband Grey,
"Were factious for the houfe of Lancaster ;-

"(And, Rivers, fo were you ;)-Was not your husband
"In Margaret's battle at Saint Albans flain ?"

It is called "Margaret's battle," because she was there victorious.

An equally decifive circumftance is furnished by the fame play. In The Third Part of King Henry VI. (p. 131,) Warwick propofes to marry his eldest daughter (Isabella) to Edward Prince of Wales, and the propofal is accepted by Edward; and in a fubfequent scene Clarence fays, he will marry the younger daughter (Anne). In these particulars Shakspeare has implicitly followed the elder drama. But the fact is, that the Prince of Wales married Anne the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick, and the Duke of Clarence married the elder, Isabella. Though the author of The true Tragedie of the Duke of Yorke, &c. was here inaccurate, and though Shakspeare too negligently followed his fteps,-when he wrote his King Richard III. he had gained better information; for there Lady ANNE is rightly reprefented as the widow of the Prince of Wales, and the youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick:

"Which done, God take king Edward to his mercy, "And leave the world to me to buftle in.

"For then I'll marry Warwick's youngest daughter; "What though I kill'd her husband, and her father," &c. i. e. Edward Prince of Wales, and King Henry VI.

King Richard III. A& I. fc. i.

I have said that certain paffages in The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. are ascertained to be Shakspeare's by a peculiar phrafeology. This peculiar phrafeology, without a fingle exception, diftinguishes fuch parts of these plays as are found in the folio, and not in the elder quarto dramas, of which the phrafeology, as well as the verfification, is of a different colour. This obfervation applies not only to the new original matter produced by Shakspeare, but to his alteration of the old. Our author in his undoubted compofitions has fallen into an inaccuracy, of which I do not recollect a fimilar inftance in the works of any other dramatift. When he has occafion to quote the fame paper twice, (not from memory, but verbatim,) from negligence he does not always attend to the words of the paper which he has occafion to quote, but makes one of the perfons of the drama recite them with variations, though he holds the very paper

quoted before his eyes. Thus, in All's well that ends well, A& V. fc. iii. Helena fays:

[ocr errors]

here's your letter; This it says:

"When from my finger you can get this ring,
"And are by me with child,"


Yet, as I have obferved in Vol. V. p. 327, n. 6. Helena in A& III. fc. ii. reads this very letter aloud, and there the words are different, and in plain profe: "When thou canft get the ring from my finger, which never fhall come off, and fhow me a child begotten of thy body," &c. In like manner, in the first fcene of The Second Part of King Henry VI. Suffolk prefents to the Duke of Glofter, protector of the realm, the articles of peace concluded between France and England. The protector begins to read the articles, but when he has proceeded no further than these words," Item, that the dutchy of Anjou and the county of Maine fhall be released and delivered to the king her father," he is fuddenly taken ill, and rendered incapable of proceeding on which the Bishop of Winchester is called upon to read the remainder of the paper. He accordingly reads the whole of the article, of which the Duke of Glofter had only read a part: "Item, It is further agreed between them, that the dutchies of Anjou and Maine fhall be released and delivered over to the king her father, and the sent," &c. Now though Maine in our old chronicles is fometimes called a county, and fometimes a dutchy, yet words cannot thus change their form under the of two readers: nor do they in the original play, entitled, The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houfes, &c. for there the article as recited by the protector correfponds with that recited by the Bishop, without the most minute variation. "Item, It is further agreed between them, that the dutchies of Anjou and of Maine fhall be released and delivered over to the king her father, and the fent," &c. Thus in the old play says the Duke, and fo fays the Cardinal after him. This one circumstance, in my apprehenfion, is of fuch weight, that though it stood alone, it might decide the prefent queftion. Our author has fallen into a fimilar inaccuracy in the fourth fcene of the fame Act, where the Duke of York recites from a paper the questions that had been put to the Spirit, relative to the Duke of Suffolk, Somerfet, &c.*


Many minute marks of Shakspeare's hands may be traced in fuch parts of the old plays as he has new-modelled. I at prefent recollect one that must strike every reader who is converfant with his writings. He very frequently uses adjectives adverbially; and this kind of phrafeology, if not peculiar to him, is found more frequently in his writings than those of any of his contem

* See Vol. XIII. p. 222, n, 8.

poraries. Thus" I am myself indifferent honeft;"—" as dishonourable ragged as an old faced ancient ;"-" equal ravenous;" "leaves them invifible;" &c.* In The true Tragedie of the Duke of Yorke, &c. the King, having determined to marry Lady Grey, injoins his brothers to use her honourably. But in Shakspeare's play the words are," ufe her honourable.” So, in Julius Cæfar:

[ocr errors]

Young man, thou could'ft not die more honourable." In like manner, in The Third Part of King Henry VI. we find this line:

"Is either flain, or wounded dangerous."

but in the old play the words are" wounded dangerously.” In the fame play the word handkerchief is used; but in the correfponding fcene in The Third Part of King Henry VI. (p. 51,) Shakspeare has fubftituted the northern term napkin, which occurs fo often in his works, in its room.†

The next circumftance to which I wish to call the attention of those who do not think the present investigation wholly incurious, is, the Tranfpofitions that are found in these plays. In the preceding notes I have frequently observed that not only feveral lines, but fometimes whole fcenes, were tranfpofed by Shakspeare. In p. 50, 51, a Meffenger, giving an account of the death of the Duke of York, fays:

"Environed he was with many foes;

"And ftood against them, as the hope of Troy

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Against the Greeks, that would have enter'd Troy. "But Hercules himself muft yield to odds ;"When this paffage was printed, not finding any trace of the laft three lines in the corresponding part of the old play, I marked them inadvertently as Shakspeare's original compofition; but I afterwards found that he had borrowed them from a fubfequent fcene on a quite different subject, in which Henry, taking leave of Warwick, fays to him

"Farewell my Hector, and my Troy's true hope!" and the last line, "But Hercules," &c. is fpoken by Warwick near the conclufion of the piece, after he is mortally wounded in the battle of Barnet.

So, in The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, &c. after the Duke has flain Clifford, he says—

"Now, Lancaster, fit fure:-thy finews shrink." Shakspeare has not made ufe of that line in that place, but

* See Vol. VIII. p. 551, n. 5; and p. 176, n. 6; Vol. VI. p. 318, n. 9. + In Othello both the words---napkin, and handkerchief, may be found. STEEVENS. See p. 152, n. 5; p. 160, n. 5; p. 166, n. 4.

availed himself of it afterwards, where Edward brings forth Warwick wounded; King Henry VI. P. III. A& V. sc. ii : "Now, Montague, fit faft: I feek for thee," &c. Many other tranfpofitions may be traced in these plays, to which I shall only refer in a note.*

Such tranfpofitions as I have noticed, could never have arisen from any careleffness or inaccuracy of transcribers or copyists; and therefore are to be added to the many other circumstances which prove that The Second and Third Parts of K. Henry VI. as exhibited in the folio, were formed from the materials of a preceding writer.

It is alfo obfervable, that many lines are repeated in Shakspeare's Second and Third Part of King Henry VI.+ but no fuch repetitions are found in the old quarto plays. The repetition undoubtedly arofe from Shakspeare's not always following his original ftrictly, but introducing expreffions which had ftruck him in other parts of the old plays; and afterwards, forgetting that he had before used fuch expreffions, he suffered them to remain in their original places alfo.

Another proof that Shakspeare was not the author of The Contention of the Two Houfes, &c. is furnished by the inconfiftencies into which he has fallen, by fometimes adhering to, and fometimes deviating from, his original: an inaccuracy which may be fometimes obferved in his undisputed plays.

One of the most remarkable inftances of this kind of inconfiftency is found in The Second Part of King Henry VI. p. 336, where he makes Henry say:

"I'll fend fome holy bishop to intreat," &c.

a circumstance which he took from Holinfhed's Chronicle; whereas in the old play no mention is made of a bishop on this occafion. The King there fays, he will himself come and parley with the rebels, and in the mean time he orders Clifford and Buckingham to gather an army. In a fubfequent fcene, however, Shakspeare forgot the new matter which he had introduced in the former; and Clifford and Buckingham only parley with Cade, &c. conformably to the old play.‡

In Romeo and Juliet he has fallen into a fimilar inaccuracy. In the poem on which that tragedy is founded, Romeo, in his interview with the Friar, after fentence of banishment has been

See Vol. XIII. p. 299, n. 4; p. 327, n. 8; p. 379, n. 3 ;---and p. 146, n.6; p. 182, n. 8 and 9; p. 189, n. 1, of the prefent volume.

See alfo p. 79, n. 4; p. 102, n. 2; p. 120, n.8; p. 126, n. 2.

See Vol. XIII. p. 219, n. 4;---and p. 123, n. 5; p. 126, n. 2, of the prefent volume.

pronounced against him, is described as paffionately lamenting his fate in the following terms:

"First nature did he blame, the author of his life,
"In which his joys had been fo fcant, and forrows aye
fo rife;

"The time and place of birth he fiercely did reprove;
"He cryed out with open mouth against the stars above.
"On fortune eke he rail'd," &c.

The Friar afterwards reproves him for want of patience. In forming the corresponding scene Shakspeare has omitted Romeo's invective against his fate, but inadvertently copied the Friar's remonftrance as it lay before him:


Why rail ft thou on thy birth, the heaven, and earth?" If the following fhould be confidered as a trifling circumstance, 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 priest concerned with Eleanor Cobham, Duchefs of Glocefter, in certain pretended operations of magick, for which the 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 King Henry VI. Our author probably thinking the name harth or ridiculous, foftened it to Hume; and by that name this prieft is called in his play printed in folio. But in Holinfhed he is named Hun; and fo undoubtedly, or perhaps for foftness, Hune; he would have been called in the original quarto play juft mentioned, if Shakspeare had been the author of it; for Holinfhed and not Hall was his guide, as I have shown incontestably in a note on King Henry V. Vol. XII. p. 292. But Hall was undoubtedly the hiftorian who had been confulted by the original writer of The Contention of the Two Houfes of Yorke and Lancafter; 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 deathbed. 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 thefe words: Why should I dye, havyng fo much ryches? If

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

« TrướcTiếp tục »