KING HENRY VI.

259

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 advan-tage 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 ſufficient warrant for at-tributing it, along with the others, to him, in the general col-lection of his works. If Shakſpere was the author of any part of this play, perhaps the ſecond and the following ſcenes of the fourth Act were his; which are for the moſt part written in rhyme, and appear to me ſomewhat of a different complexion from the reſt of the play. Nor is this the only inſtance of their proceeding on this ground; for is it poffible to conceive that they could have any other reaſon for giving *Titus Andronicus* a place in their edition of Shakſpere'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 ſo much?

Shakſpere's referring in the Epilogue to *King Henry V.* which was produced in 1599, to theſe three parts of *King Henry VI.* of which the firſt, by whom ſoever it was written, appears from the teſtimony of a contemporary to have been exhibited with great applaſe;\* and the two latter having been, as I conceive, eight years before new-modelled and almoſt re-written by our author, we may be confident were performed with the moſt brilliant ſucceſs; his ſupplicating the favour of the audience to his new play of *King Henry V.* "for the ſake" of theſe old and popular dramas, which were ſo cloſely connected with it, and in the compoſition of which, as they had for many years been exhibited, he had ſo confiderable a ſhare; the connection between the laſt ſcene of *King Henry VI.* and the firſt ſcene of *King Richard III.* the Shakſpearian diſtion, veriſication, and figures, by which *The Second* and *Third Part of K. Henry VI.* are diſtinguifhed; "the eafineſs of exprefſion and the fluency of numbers," which, it is acknowledged, are found here, and were poffeffed by no other author of that age; all theſe circumſtances are accounted for by the theory now ſtated, and all objections † that have been founded upon them, in my apprehenſion, vanifh away.

On the other hand, the entry on the Stationers' books of the

\* See p. 231 of this Diſſertation.

† See theſe ſeveral objections ſtated by Dr. Johnſon in the notes at the end of *The Third Part of King Henry VI.*

S 2

260

DISSERTATION ON

old play, entitled *The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houfes of Yorke and Lancafter, &c.* without the name of the author; that piece, and *The true of Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c.* being printed in 1600, anonymoufly; their being founded on the Chronicle of *Hall, who was not Shakſpeare's hiftorian, and reſprefented by the ſervants of Lord Pembroke, by whom none of his unconfected dramas were reſprefented; the colour, diſtion, and veriſication of theſe old plays, the various circumſtances, lines and ſpeeches, that are found in them, and not in our author's new-modification of them, as published in folio by his original editors; the reſembances that have been noſticed between his other works and ſuch parts of theſe dramas as are only exhibited in their folio edition; the diſcordances (in matters of ſact) between certain parts of the old plays printed in quarto, and Shakſpeare's undoubted performances; the tranſpoſitions that he has made in theſe pieces; the repetitions; and the peculiar Shakſpearian inaccuracies, and phraſeology, which may be traced in the folio, and not in the old quarto plays; theſe and other circumſtances, which have been ſated in the foregoing pages, form, when united, ſuch a body of argument and proofs, in ſupport of my hypothefis, as appears to me, (though I will not venture to aſſert that “ the probation bears no hinge or loop to hang a doubt on,”) to lead directly to the door of *truth*.

It it obſervable that ſeveral portions of the Englifh Hiftory had been dramatized *before the time of Shakſpeare.* Thus, we have *King John* in two parts, by an anonymous writer; *Edward I.* by George Peele; *Edward II.* by Chriſpher Marlowe; *Edward III.* anonymous; *Henry IV.* containing the depoſition of *Richard II.* and the acceſſion of *Henry* to the crown, anonymous; \* *Henry V.* and *Richard III.* both by anonymous authors.† Is it not then highly probable, that the *whole of the ſtory of Henry VI.* had alſo been brought upon the ſcene? and that the firſt of the plays now in queſtion, formerly (as I believe) called *The Hiftorical Play of King Henry VI.* and now named *The Firſt Part of King Henry VI., as well as The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houſes of Yorke and Lancafter, &c.* and *The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, &c.* (which three pieces compreſhend the entire reign of that King from his birth to his death,) were the compoſition of ſome of the authors, who had produced the hiftorical dramas above enumerated?

In ſequence of an haſty and inſconfiderate opinion formed by Mr. Pope, without any minute examination of the ſubject,

\* See the Prolegomena to *King Richard II.* Vol. XI.

† Entered on the Stationers' books in 1594.

KING HENRY VI.

261

King John in two parts, printed in 1591, and *The old Taming of the Shrew*, which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1594, and printed in 1607, paffed for half a century for the compoſition of Shakſpeare. Further inquiries have ſhown that they were the productions of earlier writers; and perhaps a more probable inſteigation of this ſubject than I have been able to make, may hereafter prove deciſively, that the firſt of the three Henries printed in folio, and both the parts of *The Whole Contention of the Two famous Houſes of Yorke and Lancafter, as exhibited in quarto, and printed in 1600, ought to be clafſed in the fame preſedament with the two old plays above mentioned. For my own part, if it ſhould ever be thought proper to reſprint the old dramas on which Shakſpeare founded ſome of his plays, which were published in two volumes a few years ago, I have no doubt that *The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houſes of Yorke and Lancafter, &c.* and *The true Tragedie of the Duke of Yorke, &c.* ſhould be added to the number.

Gildon ſomewhere ſays, that “ in a converſation between Shakſpeare and Ben Jonſon, Ben aſked him the reaſon why he wrote his hiftorical plays.” Our author (we are told) replied, that “ finding the nation generally very ignorant of hiftory, he wrote them in order to inſtruſt the people in that particular.” This anecdote, like many other traditional ſtories, ſtands on a very weak foundation; or to ſpeak more juſtly, it is certainly a ſtorie. The malignant Ben does indeed, in his *Devil's Anfs.* 1616, firſer at our author's hiftorical pieces, which for twenty years preceding had been in high reputation, and probably were then the only hiftorical dramas that had poffeffion of the theatre; but from the lift above given, it is clear that Shakſpeare was not the firſt who dramatized our old chronicles; and that the principal events of the Englifh Hiftory were familiar to the ears of his audience, before he commenced a writer for the ſtage;\* though undoubtedly

\* This point is eſtablished not only by the lift referred to, but by a paffage in a pamphlet already quoted, entitled *Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication to the Devil*, written by Thomas Nafhe, quarto, 1592: “ Whereas the afternoone being the eldeſt time of the day, wherein men that are their own maſters (as gentlemen of the Court, the Innes of court, and the number of captains and ſoldiers about London) do wholly beſow themſelves upon pleafure, and that pleafure they divide (how virtuouſly it ſkilles not,) into gaming, following of harlots, drinking, or *seeing a play*; is it not then better, ſince of ſoure extreames all the world cannot keepe them but they will choſe one, that they ſhould betake them to the laſt, which is *Playes*? Nay, what if I prove playes to be no extreame, but a rare exercise of vertue? Firſt, for the ſubject of them; for the *most part it is borrowed out of our ENGLISH CHRONICLES*, wherein our fore-fathers’ valiant aſtes, that have been long buried in ruffit bnaſſe, and worme eaten bookes, are revived, and they themſelves raiſed from the grave of oblivion, and brought to plead their aged honours in open prefence;

S 3

DISSERTATION ON

at this day, whatever knowledge of our annals is disperſed among
the people, is derived from the frequent exhibition of our author's
hiforical plays.

He certainly did not confider writing on fables that had al-
ready been formed into dramas, as any derogation from his fame ;
if indeed fame was ever an object of his thoughts. We know
that plays on the ſubjects of * Meaſure for Meaſure, The Taming
of the Shrew, The Merchant of Venice, King John, King
Richard II. King Henry IV. King Henry V. King Richard III.
King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, and, I strongly ſuppeſt, on
thofe of Hamlet, Timon of Athens, and Julius Caſar,* exſited
before he commenced a dramatick author; and perhaps in pro-
cess of time it may be found, that many of the fables of his other
plays alſo had been unfkilfully treated, and produced upon the
ſtage, by preceding writers.

Such are the only lights that I am able to throw on this very
dark ſubject. The arguments which I have ſated have entirely
fatiſhed my own mind; whether they are entitled to bring con-
viction to the minds of others, I ſhall not preſume to determine.
I produce them, however, with the more confidence, as they
have the approbation of one who has given ſuch deciſe proofs
of his tafe and knowledge, by aſſcaining the extent of Shak-
ſpeare's learning, that I have no doubt his thoughts on the pre-
fent queſtion alſo, will have that weight with the publick to

than which, what can be a ſharper reproofe to theſe degenerate days of
ours?"

After an elogium on the brave Lord Talbot, and on the aſtor who had per-
fonſed him in a popuſt play of that time, "before ten thouſand ſpeſtators
at the leaſt;" (which has already been printed in a former page,) and after
obſerving "what a glorious thing it is to have King Henry the Fifth repre-
fented on the ſtage, leading the French king prifoner, and forcing both him
and the Dolphin to ſwear fealty,"—the writer adds theſe words:

"In plays, all ſouſenages, all cunning drifts, over-guided with outward
holineſſe, all ſtratagems of warre, all the canker-wormes that breed in the
ruſt of peace, are moſt lively anatomiſed. They ſhow the ill ſuccesſe of trea-
ſon, the fall of haſty climbers, the wretched end of usurpers, the miserie of
civil dissention, and how juſt God is evermore in puniſhing murder. And
to prove every one of theſe allegations, could I propound the circumſtances
of this play and that, if I meant to handle this theame otherwise than
obiter."

It is highly probable that the words, "the miserie of civil dissention," al-
lude to the very plays which are the ſubjects of the preſent diſquifition, The
First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses &c. and The True Tragedy of
Richarde Duke of Yorke; as, by "the wretched end of Usurpers," and the
juſtice of God in "punishing murder," old plays on the ſubject of King
Richard III. and that of Hamlet, prior to thofe of Shakſpeare, were, I be-
lieve, alluded to.

* See An Attempt to ascertain the Order of Shakspeare's Plays, Vol. II.

KING HENRY VI.

which they are undoubtedly entitled. It is almoſt unneceſſary to
add, that I mean my friend Dr. Farmer; who many years ago
delivered it as his opinion, that theſe plays were not written ori-
ginally by Shakſpeare.* MALONE.

* Mr. Theobald's and Dr. Warburton's idea on which the foregoing Differ-
tation is founded, had received countenance from the opinion of Dr. Farmer.
Mr. Malone, with much labour and ingenuity, has given ſupport to the ſenti-
ments of theſe gentlemen; but, in my judgment, if he proves any thing, it
is a pofition hazarded by me long ago; viz. that our author had as much
hand in the preſent dramas, as in ſeveral others that pafs under his name;
for, as I obſerved in Mr. Malone's Attempt to ascertain &c. (article, Macbeth)
"a time may arrive, in which it will become evident, from books and manu-
fer scripts yet undifcovered and unexamined, that Shakſpeare did not attempt a
ſingle play on any ſubject, till the effect of the fame ſtory, or at leaſt the
ruling incidents in it, had been tried on the ſtage, and familiarized to his
audience;"—a conjecture which in ſome inſtances has been already con-
firmed.

Of the firſt part of theſe three Hiftories, however, it is aſſerted, that in co-
lour of ſtyle, &c. it bears no reſemblance to the other works of our author.
As I think, among the notes on that piece, I have advanced ſome proofs to
the contrary, in this place I ſhall be content to add, that it as strongly re-
fembles the latter dramas of Shakſpeare, as the Dream of Raphael reſembles
his Transfiguration. Between the firſt and laſt performances of great matters,
there is often but a ſmall, if any, degree of reſemblance. Sir Jofhua Reynolds
ſtudied under Hudfon, and at firſt imitated his manner; but is a trace of the
almoſt ſorgotten matter diſcoverable in the mature and applauded works of the
pupil? S. P. E. V. E N S.

S4

TITUS ANDRONICUS.

ACT V.

Scene 1. Page 351.

AAR. An idiot holds his *bauble* for a God,
And keeps the oath which by that God he swears.

Even though the bauble here mentioned had
been actually of that kind which is alluded to in
the course of a note in *All's well that ends well*,
Act iv., his imagination would be deemed not a
little fanciful, who would connect it with the ob-
ject of the singular oath in *Genesis*, xxiv. 9.
There cannot however be a doubt that Aaron
refers to that sort of bauble or sceptre which was
usually carried in the hand by natural idiots and
allowed jesters, and by which, it may be sup-
posed, they would sometimes swear. The re-
semblance which it bore to an image or idol
suggested the poet's comparison.

Sc. 2. p. 363.

TIT. So, now bring them in, for I will play the cook.

This redundant line ought to be thus arranged
and printed.

So,
Now bring them in, for I will play the cook.

118

TITUS ANDRONICUS.

Sc. 3. p. 364.

MAR. Rome's emperor, and nephew, *break* the parle.

Dr. Johnson makes the sense “begin the parley.” Is it not rather “break off this sort of discourse!”? for Lucius and Saturninus had already *begun* the parley by sparring language: to prevent the continuance of it Marcus interferes, by declaring that their quarrels must be adjusted by gentle *words*.

Throughout this play the name *Andronicus* is improperly accented. It should have been *Andronicus*.

## THE CLOWN.

HE is nothing more than a shrewd rustic, performing the office of a messenger.

PERICLES.

133

to Mr. Mason's second explanation. Nor is this
gentleman's argument supported by the instance
adduced of the sun having been used as the sign
of a brothel. It was by no means exclusively,
or even particularly so. The following passage
from Dekker's *Villanies discovered, or the bel-
man's night walks*, may throw some light on the
subject before us. "He saw the doores of noto-
rious *carted bawdes* (like hell gates) stand night
and day wide open, with a *paire of harlots* in
taffata gownes (like two painted posts) garnishing
out those doores, being better to the house then a
double signe."

Sc. 6. p. 567.

MAR. Thou'rt the damn'd door-keeper to every coystrel
That hither comes enquiring for his *tib*.

Mr. Malone thinks *Tib* a contraction of Tabitha; but quære if not of Isabel? In all events it was a name given to any lewd woman. In *Pasquil's mad cappe*, 1626, 4to, an excellent satire, mention is made of a *tinker and his tibbe*. Why this name was exclusively applied to a loose woman, or how it got into the game of gleek, does not appear.

134

PERICLES.

ACT V.

Scene 3. Page 607.

PER. Heav'ns make a star of him!

So in 1 Henry VI. Act i.

"A far more glorious star thy soul will make
Than Julius Cæsar—"

This notion is borrowed from the ancients,
who expressed their mode of conferring divine
honours and immortality on men, by placing
them among the stars. Thus on a medal of Ha-
drian the adopted son of Trajan and Plotina,
the divinity of his parents is expressed by pla-
cing a star over their heads; and in like manner
the consecration medals of Faustina the elder ex-
hibit her on an eagle, her head surrounded with
stars. Other similar medals have the moon and
stars; and some of Faustina the younger the in-
scription SIDERIBVS RECEPTA.

THE CLOWN.

Although Boult, the servant to the pandar
and his wife, is not termed a clown in the dra-

PERICLES.

135

matis personæ, it should seem that he has an
equal claim to the appellation with several other
low characters that have been introduced into
plays for the purpose of amusing the audience.
He bears some affinity to the tapster in *Measure
for measure*; but there is nothing that imme-
diately constitutes him the jester to a brothel.
See what has been said on such a character in the
article relating to the clown in *Measure for mea-
sure*.

ON THE STORY OF PERICLES.

As the very great popularity of this play in
former times may be supposed to have originated
rather from the interest which the *story*, replete
with incident, must have excited, than from any
intrinsic merit as a *dramatic composition*; it may
be worth while, and even interesting to many,
to give the subject more ample discussion. To
trace it beyond the period in which the favourite
romance of *Apollonius Tyrius* was composed;
would be a vain attempt. That was the probable
original; but of its author nothing decisive has
been discovered. The following circumstance,