province.* The words 'tiger's heart wrapt in a player's hide' parody the line ' O tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide,' which is to be found in both The True Tragedy and 3 Henry VI. (I. iv. 137). Some critics are of opinion that Greene's allusion does not necessarily imply Shakespeare's authorship of the passage in which the line occurs; this view, however, seems untenable, judging by the manner in which the quotation is introduced. Nevertheless the passage may perhaps show (i.) that Greene himself had some share in The Contention; (ii.) that Marlowe had likewise a share in it; (iii.) that Greene and Shakespeare could not have worked together; and (iv.) that Marlowe and Shakespeare may have worked together. One thing, however, it conclusively proves—viz., Shakespeare's connexion with these plays before 1592. Furthermore, in December of the same year, Chettle apologised for the publication of Greene's attack on Shakespeare:-" Myselfe have seene his demeanour no lesse civill, than he exelent in the qualitie he professes; besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of daling," etc.* It is not likely that the subject of this eulogy could have been a notorious plagiarist; if, as some

* Nash, in his "Apologie for Pierce Penniless," tells us that Greene was "chief agent" of Lord Pembroke's Company, “for he wrote more than four other." It is significant that the titlepage of Quarto 1 of “The True Tragedie" expressly states that the play had been acted by this Company.

+ Chettle's 'Kind-Heart's Dream.'

One does not deny that Greene may possibly have given Shakespeare 'the ground' of these plays, as later on he gave him the stuff for his Winter's Tale. "R. B. Gent." has the following significant verse in a volume entitled Greene's Funeralls (preserved in the Bodleain Library) :—

Greene is the pleasing object of an eye;

Greene pleased the eyes of all that looked upon him;
Greene is the ground of every painter's die;

Greene gave the ground to all that wrote upon him:

Nay more, the men that so eclipst his fame,

Purloined his plumes; can they deny the same?"

maintain, no line in the Quartos can justly be attributed to Shakespeare, he would perhaps have merited Greene's rancour. But it is not so, and it was not so, and God forbid that it should be so!"

(III.) In 1599 Shakespeare concluded his Epilogue to Henry V. with the following lines:

Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crowned King

Of France and England, did this King succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,

That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown: and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take."

From these words we may infer (i.) that I Henry VI.
preceded Henry V.; (ii.) that probably the Second and
Third Parts of Henry VI. are also referred to; (iii.) that
Shakespeare claimed in some degree these plays as his

own.

(IV.) Finally, the intimate connexion of 2, 3 Henry VI. (and The Contention and The True Tragedie) with the play of Richard III., throws valuable light on the date of composition, and confirms the external and internal evidence for assigning Shakespeare's main contributions to these plays to the year 1591-2, or thereabouts (Cp. Preface to 'Richard the Third').

Sources of the Plot. The materials for 1, 2, 3 Henry VI., were mainly derived from (i.) Holinshed's Chronicles, and (ii.) Hall's Chronicle; the account of the civil wars in the former work is merely an abridgement of the latter; the author's attention would therefore, naturally, be directed to the chief history of the period covered by the plays [cp. title-page of the first edition, 1548:-" The Union of the two noble and illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, being long in continual discension for the croune of this noble realme, with all the actes done in bothe the tymes of the princes, bothe of the one linage and of the other, beginnyng at the tyme of Kyng Henry the

fowerth, the first Author of this division, and so successively proceadyng to the reigne of the high and prudent prince Kyng Henry the eighth, vndubitate flower and very heire of both the sayd linages"].* Although in no part of Henry VI. is Holinshed's Chronicles followed "with that particularity which we have in Shakespeare's later historical plays," it is noteworthy that it is the primary source of Part I., the secondary of Parts II. and III. (On the historical aspect of the plays, cp. Commentaries on the Historical Plays of Shakespeare, Courtenay; Warner's English History in Shakespeare.)

Duration of Action. The time of the First Part is eight days, with intervals; the Second Part covers fourteen days, represented on the stage, with intervals suggesting a period in all of, at the outside, a couple of years; in the Third Part twenty days are represented; the whole period is about twelve months.

Historic Time. Part I. deals with the period from "the death of Henry V., 31st August, 1422, to the treaty of marriage between Henry VI. and Margaret, end of 1444." Part II. covers about ten years, from April 22nd, 1445, to May 23rd, 1455. Part III. commences on the day of the battle of St. Albans, 23rd May, 1455, and ends on the day on which Henry VI.'s body was exposed in St. Paul's, 22nd May, 1471. Queen Margaret, however, was not ransomed and sent to France till 1475." (Cp. Daniel's "Time Analysis," New Shak. Soc., 1877-79.)

* Knight points out an excellent instance of Hall's influence, as compared with Holinshed's; in the latter's narrative of the interview between Talbot and his son, before they both fell at the battle of Chatillon, we have no dialogue, but simply, 'Many words he used to persuade him to have saved his life.' In Hall we have the very words which the Poet has paraphrased.

Critical Comments.

I.

Argument.

I. The martial Henry V., conqueror of France, dies in the culmination of his glory, leaving to his son, Henry VI., the two sceptres of England and France. But the young monarch, still in his minority, is surrounded by warring nobles who lose sight of their country's foreign interests in private broils. The French seize upon this moment of English weakness to retake many of their cities; and the Dauphin receives unexpected aid from a shepherd's daughter, Joan la Pucelle, better known as Joan of Arc, who first assists him to raise the siege of Orleans, notwithstanding the valiant resistance of the English general, Talbot.

II. While the French celebrate their victory with feasting in Orleans, the English plan an attack, and by a sudden night sortie retake the city.

In England, meanwhile, the violent feuds of Richard Plantagenet, afterwards Duke of York, and John Beaufort, Earl, afterwards Duke of Somerset, whose parties are distinguished by white and red roses, develop into civil strife which was ere long to deluge the entire kingdom with blood.

III. The French, through the strategy of Joan of Arc, capture Rouen; but Talbot's forces in a desperate charge retake the city. An English garrison is placed on the walls, and Talbot proceeds with his army to Paris, whither the young King Henry VI. has come for his

second coronation. The King recognizes the merit of his general by creating Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury. The French Duke of Burgundy, who had been serving in conjunction with the English army, and had set out from Rouen a little behind Talbot, is met by the Dauphin and persuaded to turn his allegiance to France.

IV. The intrepid Talbot and his son attempt to take Bordeaux, but are entrapped by a greatly superior force under the Dauphin. The personal quarrels of York and Somerset cause them to deny reinforcements promised to Talbot, and he is slain in a bloody battle.

V. The French on their side suffer a loss in the capture of Joan of Arc, who is cruelly condemned to death at the stake for witchcraft. The war brings varying fortunes to both sides, until at last overtures of peace are made. The Dauphin consents to swear allegiance to England and reign as viceroy; while King Henry is induced by the artful suggestions of the Earl of Suffolk to forego a proposed matrimonial alliance with the daughter of the Earl of Armagnac, and to solicit the hand of Margaret, daughter of the Duke of Anjou. MCSPADDEN: Shakespearian Synopses.

II.

King Henry.

Shakspere does not hate King Henry; he is as favourably disposed to him as is possible; but he says, with the same clear and definite expression in which the historical fact uttered itself, that this saint of a feeble type upon the throne of England was a curse to the land and to the time only less than a royal criminal as weak as Henry would have been.

The heroic days of the fifth Henry, when the play opens, belong to the past; but their memory survives in the hearts and in the vigorous muscles of the great lords