We

THE Dramas of Shakspere are in no particular more remarkable than in the almost complete absence of any allusion to their author -any reference to his merely personal thoughts and circumstances-any intimation, that might naturally enough have been conveyed in Prologue or Epilogue, of the relations in which the Poet stood with regard to his audience. There are only ten of his plays in which any one of the characters, at the conclusion, comes forward as an actor to deprecate censure or solicit applause. There are only two out of these ten plays in which the Author, through the actor, directly addresses the spectators. In the Epilogue to 'The Second Part of Henry IV.' the Dancer says, in a light manner, “Our humble Author will continue the story." In the concluding Chorus to Henry V.,' the Poet, then in the very zenith of his popularity, addresses himself to the audience, of course through the actor, more seriously and emphatically:

Henry the sixth, in infant bands crown'd king Of France and England, did this king succeed;

Whose state so many had the managing,

That they lost France, and made his Eng

land bleed:

Which oft our stage hath shown; and for

their sake,

In your fair minds let this acceptance take." "The story" which the author "hath pursued thus far" is the story which began with the deposition of Richard II. The story of the triumphant progress of the house of Lancaster, up to the period when the son of Bolingbroke had "achieved the world's best garden," had been told by the poet in four dramas, of which 'Henry V.' was the concluding one.

These dramas had been linked together with the most scrupulous care, so that, although for the purposes of representation there were necessarily distinct pauses in the action, they were essentially one great drama. They were written, it is highly probable, almost consecutively; for not only does the external evidence show that they were given to the world during the last three years of the sixteenth century, but their whole dramatic construction, as well as their peculiarities of style, determine them to belong to one and the same period of the poet's life, when his genius grasped a subject with the full consciousness of power, and revelled in its own luxuriance, whether of wit or

manent importance. The grant was confirmed in 1599; and the reason for the confirmation of arms is stated with minute particularity in the "exemplification" then granted by Sir William Dethick and the great Camden :-"Know ye that in all nations and kingdoms the record and remembrance of the valiant facts and virtuous dispositions of worthy men have been known and divulged by certain shields of arms and tokens of chivalry; the grant and testimony whereof appertaineth unto us, by virtue of our offices from the queen's most excellent majesty and her highness' most noble and victorious progenitors; wherefore, being solicited, and by credible report informed that John Shakspeare, now of Stratford-uponAvon, in the county of Warwick, gent., whose parent and great-grandfather, late antecessor, for his faithful and approved service to the late most prudent prince King Henry VII. of famous memory, was advanced and rewarded with lands and tenements, given to him in these parts of Warwickshire, where they have continued by some descents in good reputation and credit," &c., &c. It is not difficult to imagine the youthful Shakspere sitting at his mother's feet, to listen to the tale of his "antecessor's " prowess; or to picture the boy led by his father over the field of Bosworth-to be shown the great morass which lay between both armies-and Radmoor Plain, where the battle began— and Dickon's Nook, where the tyrant harangued his army-and the village of Dadlington, where the graves of the slain still indented the ground. Here was the scene of his antecessor's "faithful and approved service." In the humble house of Shakspere's boyhood there was, in all probability, to be

found a thick squat folio volume, then some thirty years printed, in which might be read, "what misery, what murder, and what execrable plagues this famous region hath suffered by the division and dissention of the renowned houses of Lancaster and York." This, to the generation of Shakspere's boyhood, was not a tale buried in the dust of ages; it was one whose traditions were familiar to the humblest of the land, whilst the memory of its bitter hatreds still ruffled the spirits of the highest. "For what nobleman liveth at this day, or what gentleman of any ancient stock or progeny is clear, whose lineage hath not been infested and plagued with this unnatural division ?" In that old volume from which we quote, "the names of the histories contained" are thus set forth : |—“I. "The Unquiet Time of King Henry the Fourth.' II. "The Victorious Acts of King Henry the Fifth.' III. 'The Troublous Season of King Henry the Sixth.' IV. 'The Prosperous Reign of King Edward the Fourth.' V. "The Pitiful Life of King Edward the Fifth.' VI. 'The Tragical Doings of King Richard the Third.' VII. The Politic Governance of King Henry the Seventh.' VIII. 'The Triumphant Reign of King Henry the Eighth.' This book was Hall's 'Chronicle.'

The subject, then, of this division of our 'Studies' will be Shakspere's Dramatic Chronicle" of the two noble and illustrious families of Lancaster and York, being long in continual dissention for the Crown of this realm,”—the 'Chronicle,' which commences with the banishment of Bolingbroke by Richard II., and ends with the overthrow of the descendant of "the first author of the division " on the field of Bosworth.

THE Richard II. of Shakspere is the Richard II. of real history.

But there is a question whether, as the foundation of this drama, Shakspere worked upon any previous play. No copy of any such play exists. The character of Richard is so entire so thoroughly a whole-that we can have little doubt in believing it to be a creation, and not a character adapted to the received dramatic notions of the poet's audience. But still there is every reason to suppose that there was another play of 'Richard II.'—perhaps two others; and that one held possession of the stage long after Shakspere's exquisite production had been acted and published. There is a curious matter connected with the state history of Shakspere's own times that has regard to the performance of some play of 'Richard II.' On the afternoon previous to the insurrection of the Earl of Essex, in February, 1601, Sir Gilly Merrick, one of his partisans, procured to be acted before a great company of those who were engaged in the conspiracy, "the play of deposing Richard II." The official pamphlet of the declarations of the treasons of the Earl of Essex states that, when it was told Merrick, "by one of the players, that the play was old, and they should have loss in playing it, because few would come to it, there was forty shillings extraordinary given to play it; and so, thereupon, played it was." In the printed account of the arraignment of Merrick, it is said that he ordered this play "to satisfy his eyes with a sight of that tragedy which he thought soon after his lord should bring from the stage to the state." There is a passage in Camden's 'Annals' which would appear to place it beyond a doubt that the play so acted was an older play than that of Shakspere. there charged against Essex that he procured, by money, the obsolete tragedy (exoletam tragœdiam) of the abdication of Richard II. to be acted in a public theatre before the

It is

the

conspiracy. Bacon hints at a systematic purpose of bringing Richard II. “ upon stage and into print in Queen Elizabeth's time." Elizabeth herself, in a conversation with Lambarde, the historian of Kent, and keeper of the Records in the Tower, going over a pandect of the Rolls which Lambarde had prepared, coming to the reign of Richard II., said, "I am Richard II., know ye not that?" Any allusion to Richard II. at that time was the cause of great jealousy. Haywarde, in 1599, very narrowly escaped a state prosecution for his 'First Part of the Life and Reign of King Henry IV.' This book was the deposition of Richard II. put "into print," to which Bacon alludes. It appears to us that, without further evidence, there can be no doubt that the play acted before the partisans of the Earl of Essex was not the play of Shakspere. The deposition scene, as we know by the title-page, professed to be added to the edition of 1608. The play which Merrick ordered was, in 1601, called an obsolete play. Further, would Shakspere have continued in favour with Elizabeth, had he been the author of a play whose performance gave such deep offence?

But we have now further evidence that there was an old play of' Richard II.,' which essentially differed from Shakspere's play. Mr. Collier, whose researches have thrown so much light upon the stage in general, and upon Shakspere's life in particular, has published some very curious extracts from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, which describe, from the observations of a playgoer in the time of James I., a play of 'Richard II.,' essentially different in its scenes from the play of Shakspere. Dr. Symon Forman, who was a sort of quack and astrologer, and who, being implicated in the conspiracy to murder Sir Thomas Overbury, had escaped public accusation by suddenly dying in 1611, kept a book of plays and notes thereof, for common policy;" by which

66

66

common policy" he means—for maxims of prudence. His first entry is entitled "in Richard II., at the Globe, 1611, the 30 of April, Thursday." From the extract which we shall take the liberty of giving from Mr. Collier's book, it will be seen that at Shakspere's own theatre, the Globe, a 'Richard II.' was performed, which was, unquestionably, not his' Richard II.'

"Remember therein how Jack Straw, by his overmuch boldness, not being politic nor suspecting anything, was suddenly, at Smithfield Bars, stabbed by Walworth, the Mayor of London, and so he and his whole army was overthrown. Therefore, in such case, or the like, never admit any party without a bar between, for a man cannot be too wise, nor keep himself

too safe.

“Also remember how the Duke of Glocester, the Earl of Arundel, Oxford, and others, crossing the King in his humour about the Duke of Erland (Ireland) and Bushy, were glad to fly and raise a host of men; and, being in his castle, how the Duke of Erland came by night to betray him, with three hundred men; but, having privy warning thereof, kept his gates fast, and would not suffer the enemy to enter, which went back again with a fly in his ear, and after was slain by the Earl of Arundel in the battle.

Remember, also, when the Duke (i. e. of Glocester) and Arundel came to London with their army, King Richard came forth to them, and met them, and gave them fair words, and promised them pardon, and that all should be well, if they would discharge their army: upon whose promises and fair speeches they did it; and after, the King bid them all to a banquet, and so betrayed them and cut off their heads, &c., because they had not his pardon under his hand and seal before, but his word.

"Remember therein, also, how the Duke of Lancaster privily contrived all villainy to set them all together by the ears, and to make the nobility to envy the King, and mislike him and his government; by which means he made his own son king, which was Henry Bolingbroke.

From Forman's account of this play it will be seen that it embraces the earlier period of Richard II., containing the insurrection of Jack Straw. It seems very doubtful whether it includes the close of the reign. We have a talk for “policy” about the Duke of Lancaster's (Gaunt's) machinations; but nothing about Henry Bolingbroke. Were there two plays of 'Richard II.' of which we know nothing—the obsolete play of the deposition, which Merrick caused to be acted in 1601, and the play containing Jack Straw, which Forman noted in 1611?

We scarcely know how to approach this drama, even for the purpose of a simple analysis. We are almost afraid to trust our

somewhat 66

own admiration when we turn to the cold criticism by which opinion in this country has been wont to be governed. We have been told that it cannot "be said much to affect the passions or enlarge the understanding." It may be so. And yet, we think, it might somewhat "affect the passions," for " gorgeous tragedy" hath here put on her "scepter'd pall," and if she bring not Terror in her train, Pity, at least, claims the sad story for her own. And yet it may enlarge the understanding,"for, though it abound not in those sententheme at school," it lays bare more than one tious moralities which may fitly adorn " a human bosom with a most searching anatomy; and, in the moral and intellectual strength and weakness of humanity, which it discloses with as much precision as the scalpel reveals to the student of our physical nature the symptoms of health or disease, may we read the proximate and final causes of this world's success or loss, safety or danger, honour or disgrace, elevation or ruin. And then, moreover, the profound truths *New Particulars regarding the Works of Shakespeare: 1836.

↑ Johnson.