Chapter 22

"Per.Good Madam, make me blessed in your careIn bringing up my child.Dion.I have one myself,Who shall not be more dear to my respect,Than your's, my lord.Per.Madam, my thanks and prayers.Cleon.We'll bring your grace even to the edge o'the shore;Then give you up to the mask'd Neptune, andThe gentlest winds of heaven.Per.I will embraceYour offer. Come, dear'st Madam.—O, no tears.Lychorida, no tears:Look to your little mistress, on whose graceYou may depend hereafter."[276:A]

"Per.Good Madam, make me blessed in your careIn bringing up my child.

"Per.Good Madam, make me blessed in your care

In bringing up my child.

Dion.I have one myself,Who shall not be more dear to my respect,Than your's, my lord.

Dion.I have one myself,

Who shall not be more dear to my respect,

Than your's, my lord.

Per.Madam, my thanks and prayers.

Cleon.We'll bring your grace even to the edge o'the shore;Then give you up to the mask'd Neptune, andThe gentlest winds of heaven.

Cleon.We'll bring your grace even to the edge o'the shore;

Then give you up to the mask'd Neptune, and

The gentlest winds of heaven.

Per.I will embraceYour offer. Come, dear'st Madam.—O, no tears.Lychorida, no tears:Look to your little mistress, on whose graceYou may depend hereafter."[276:A]

Per.I will embrace

Your offer. Come, dear'st Madam.—O, no tears.

Lychorida, no tears:

Look to your little mistress, on whose grace

You may depend hereafter."[276:A]

The affectionate attachment of Marina to this friend of her infancy, and her deep-felt sorrow for her loss, advantageously open her character in the first scene of the fourth act, where she is introduced strewing the grave of Lychorida with flowers.

"EnterMarina, with a Basket of Flowers.Mar.No, no, I will rob Tellus of her weed,To strew thy green with flowers: the yellows, blues,The purple violets, and madrigolds,Shall, as a chaplet, hang upon thy grave,While summer days do last. Ah me! poor maid,Born in a tempest, when my mother died,This world to me is like a lasting storm,Whirring me from my friends;"[276:B]

"EnterMarina, with a Basket of Flowers.

Mar.No, no, I will rob Tellus of her weed,To strew thy green with flowers: the yellows, blues,The purple violets, and madrigolds,Shall, as a chaplet, hang upon thy grave,While summer days do last. Ah me! poor maid,Born in a tempest, when my mother died,This world to me is like a lasting storm,Whirring me from my friends;"[276:B]

Mar.No, no, I will rob Tellus of her weed,

To strew thy green with flowers: the yellows, blues,

The purple violets, and madrigolds,

Shall, as a chaplet, hang upon thy grave,

While summer days do last. Ah me! poor maid,

Born in a tempest, when my mother died,

This world to me is like a lasting storm,

Whirring me from my friends;"[276:B]

a passage, the leading idea of which, Shakspeare has transplanted with the same pleasing effect into hisCymbeline.[276:C]

Scarcely has Marina lamented the decease of her faithful attendant, when envy and malignity conspire against her life in the bosom of one who ought to have been her surest safeguard against misfortune. Dionyza, perceiving her own daughter eclipsed by the beauty andaccomplishments of her ward, resolves upon her destruction, and bribes a wretch, named Leonine, to the commission of the deed. The dialogue which takes place on this occasion, between the ruffian and his intended victim, places the artless simplicity of the latter in a very pleasing point of view.

"Leon.Come, say your prayers speedily.Mar.What mean you?Leon.If you require a little space for prayer,I grant it: Pray; but be not tedious,For the gods are quick of ear, and I am swornTo do my work with haste.Mar.Why, will you kill me?Leon.To satisfy my lady.Mar.Why would she have me killed?Now, as I can remember,I never did her hurt in all my life;I never spake bad word, nor did ill turnTo any living creature: believe me,I never kill'd a mouse, nor hurt a fly:I trod upon a worm against my will,But I wept for it. How have I offended,Wherein my death might yield her profit, orMy life imply her danger?Leon.My commissionIs not to reason of the deed, but do it.Mar.You will not do't for all the world, I hope.You are well favour'd, and your looks foreshowYou have a gentle heart. I saw you lately,When you caught hurt in parting two that fought:Good sooth, it show'd well in you; do so now:Your lady seeks my life; come you between,And save poor me, the weaker."[277:A]

"Leon.Come, say your prayers speedily.

Mar.What mean you?

Leon.If you require a little space for prayer,I grant it: Pray; but be not tedious,For the gods are quick of ear, and I am swornTo do my work with haste.

Leon.If you require a little space for prayer,

I grant it: Pray; but be not tedious,

For the gods are quick of ear, and I am sworn

To do my work with haste.

Mar.Why, will you kill me?

Leon.To satisfy my lady.

Mar.Why would she have me killed?Now, as I can remember,I never did her hurt in all my life;I never spake bad word, nor did ill turnTo any living creature: believe me,I never kill'd a mouse, nor hurt a fly:I trod upon a worm against my will,But I wept for it. How have I offended,Wherein my death might yield her profit, orMy life imply her danger?

Mar.Why would she have me killed?

Now, as I can remember,

I never did her hurt in all my life;

I never spake bad word, nor did ill turn

To any living creature: believe me,

I never kill'd a mouse, nor hurt a fly:

I trod upon a worm against my will,

But I wept for it. How have I offended,

Wherein my death might yield her profit, or

My life imply her danger?

Leon.My commissionIs not to reason of the deed, but do it.

Leon.My commission

Is not to reason of the deed, but do it.

Mar.You will not do't for all the world, I hope.You are well favour'd, and your looks foreshowYou have a gentle heart. I saw you lately,When you caught hurt in parting two that fought:Good sooth, it show'd well in you; do so now:Your lady seeks my life; come you between,And save poor me, the weaker."[277:A]

Mar.You will not do't for all the world, I hope.

You are well favour'd, and your looks foreshow

You have a gentle heart. I saw you lately,

When you caught hurt in parting two that fought:

Good sooth, it show'd well in you; do so now:

Your lady seeks my life; come you between,

And save poor me, the weaker."[277:A]

Marina snatched from this villain by the sudden intervention of pirates, is sold by them to the keeper of a brothel at Mitylene, a situation which appears to her still more dreadful than that from which she has so narrowly escaped. She laments that Leonine hadnot executed his orders, or that the pirates had not thrown her overboard, and exclaims in language equally beautiful and appropriate,—

"——————— O that the good godsWould set me free from this unhallow'd place,Though they did change me to the meanest birdThat flies i' the purer air."[278:A]

"——————— O that the good gods

Would set me free from this unhallow'd place,

Though they did change me to the meanest bird

That flies i' the purer air."[278:A]

Indebted to her talents and accomplishments, which she represents to her purchasers as more likely to be productive than the wages of prostitution, she is allowed to quit the brothel uninjured, but under a compact to devote the profits of her industry and skill to the support of her cruel oppressors.

The mild fortitude and resignation which she exhibits during this humiliating state of servitude, and the simple dignity which she displays in her person and manners, are forcibly delineated in the following observations of Pericles, who, roused from his torpor by her figure, voice, and features, and interested in her narrative, thus addresses her:—

"Pr'ythee speak;Falseness cannot come from thee, for thou look'stModest as justice, and thou seem'st a palaceFor the crown'd truth to dwell in:—"yea" thou dost lookLike Patience, gazing on king's graves and smilingExtremity out of act:"[279:A]

"Pr'ythee speak;

Falseness cannot come from thee, for thou look'st

Modest as justice, and thou seem'st a palace

For the crown'd truth to dwell in:—"yea" thou dost look

Like Patience, gazing on king's graves and smiling

Extremity out of act:"[279:A]

a picture which is rendered yet more touching by a subsequent trait; for Lysimachus informs us

"———————— she would never tellHer parentage; being demanded that,She would sit still and weep."[279:B]

"———————— she would never tell

Her parentage; being demanded that,

She would sit still and weep."[279:B]

To this delightful sketch of female tenderness and subdued suffering, nearly all the interest of the last two acts is to be ascribed, and we feel, therefore, highly gratified that sorrows so unmerited, and so well borne, should, at length, terminate not only in repose, but in positive happiness. The poet, indeed, has allotted strict retributory justice to all his characters; the bad are severely punished, while in Pericles and his daughter, we behold

"Virtue preserv'd from fell destruction's blast,Led on by heaven, and crown'd with joy at last."[279:C]

"Virtue preserv'd from fell destruction's blast,

Led on by heaven, and crown'd with joy at last."[279:C]

To whom, may it now be asked, if not to Shakspeare, can this play with any probability be given? Has not the above slight analysis of its two principal characters, with the quotations necessarily adduced, fully convinced us, that in style, sentiment, and imagery, and in the outline and conception of its chief female personage, the hand of our great master is undeniably displayed?

We presume, therefore, both theexternalandinternal evidencefor much the greater part of this play being thecomposition of Shakspearemay be pronounced complete and unanswerable; and it now only remains to enquire, if there be sufficient ground for consideringPericles, as we have ventured to do in this arrangement, as theFIRSTdramatic productionof our author's pen.

It is very extraordinary that the positive testimony of Dryden as to thepriorityofPericles, especially if we weigh well the import of the context, should ever have admitted of a moment's doubt or controversy. Nothing can, we think, be more plainly declaratory than the lines in question, which shall be given at length:—

"Your Ben and Fletcher in theirfirst young flight,Did noVolpone, noArbaceswrite:But hopp'd about, and short excursions madeFrom bough to bough, as if they were afraid;And each were guilty of someSlighted Maid.Shakspeare's own muse his PericlesFIRSTbore;ThePrince of Tyrewas elder thanThe Moor:'Tis miracle to see afirstgoodplay;All hawthorns do not bloom on Christmas-day.A slender poet must have time to grow,And spread and burnish, as his brothers do:Who still looks lean, sure with some p— is curst,But no man can be Falstaff fat atfirst."[281:A]

"Your Ben and Fletcher in theirfirst young flight,

Did noVolpone, noArbaceswrite:

But hopp'd about, and short excursions made

From bough to bough, as if they were afraid;

And each were guilty of someSlighted Maid.

Shakspeare's own muse his PericlesFIRSTbore;

ThePrince of Tyrewas elder thanThe Moor:

'Tis miracle to see afirstgoodplay;

All hawthorns do not bloom on Christmas-day.

A slender poet must have time to grow,

And spread and burnish, as his brothers do:

Who still looks lean, sure with some p— is curst,

But no man can be Falstaff fat atfirst."[281:A]

This passage, if it mean any thing, must imply, not only from the bare assertion of one line, but from all the accessory matter, thatPericleswas the firstyoung flightof Shakspeare, that it wasthe first offspring of his dramatic muse, hisfirst play. That thiswasthe meaning of Dryden, and not merely thatPericleswas produced beforeOthello, will be further evident from recollecting the occasion of the Prologue whence these lines are taken. It was written to introduce thefirstplay of Dr. Charles D'Avenant, then only nineteen years of age, and the bard expressly calls it"the blossom of his green years," the "rude essay of a youthful poet, who may grow up to write,"expressions which can assimilate it withPericlesonly on the supposition that the latter was, likeCirce, afirstlingof dramatic genius.

That Dryden, who wrote this prologue in 1675, possessed, from his approximation to the age of Shakspeare, many advantages for ascertaining the truth, none will deny. When the former had attained the age of twenty, the latter had been dead but thirty-five years, and the subsequent connection of the modern bard with the stage, and his intimacy with Sir William D'Avenant, who had produced his first play in 1629, and had been well acquainted with Heminge and the surviving companions of Shakspeare, would furnish him with sufficientdatafor his assertion, independent of any reliance on the similar declarations of Shepherd and Tatham.

Taking the statement of Dryden, therefore, as a disclosure of the fact, it follows, of course, from what has been previously said on the epoch of Shakspeare's commencement as a dramatic writer, thatPericlesmust be referred to the autumn of the year 1590, an assignment which the consideration of a few particulars will tend to corroborate.

In the first place, it may be remarked, that the numerousdumb showsof this play, are of themselves a striking presumptive proof of its antiquity, indicating that Shakspeare, who subsequently laughed at these clumsy expedients, thought it necessary, at the opening of his career, to fall in with the fashion of the times, with a fashion which had reigned from the earliest establishment of our stage, which was still in vogue in 1590, but soon after this period became an object of ridicule, and began to decline.

Mr. Malone has remarked, that from the manner in whichPericlesis mentioned in a metrical pamphlet, entitledPimlyco or Runne Red-cap, 1609, there is reason to conclude that it is coëval with the old play ofJane Shore[282:A]; and this latter being noticed by Beaumont and Fletcher in conjunction withThe Bold Beauchamps[282:B], a production which D'Avenant classes, in point of age, withTamburlaineandFaustus[282:C], pieces which appeared in or before 1590, he infers,perhaps not injudiciously, thatPericleshas a claim to similar antiquity, and should be ascribed to the year 1590.[283:A]

But a still stronger conclusion in favour of the date which, we think, should be assigned toPericles, may be drawn from a suggestion of Mr. Steevens, which has not perhaps been sufficiently considered. This gentleman contends, that Shakspeare's Prince of Tyre was originally namedPyroclés, after the hero of Sidney's Arcadia, the character, as he justly observes, not bearing the smallest affinity to that of the Athenian statesman. "It is remarkable," says he, "that many of our ancient writers were ambitious to exhibit Sidney's worthies on the stage: and when his subordinate agents were advanced to such honour, how happened it thatPyrocles, their leader, should be overlooked? Musidorus (his companion), Argalus and Parthenia, Phalantus and Eudora, Andromana, &c. furnished titles for different tragedies; and perhapsPyrocles, in the present instance, was defrauded of a like distinction. The names invented or employed by Sidney, had once such popularity, that they were sometimes borrowed by poets who did not profess to follow the direct current of his fables, or attend to the strict preservation of his characters.—I must add, that theAppolynof the Story-book and Gower could have been rejected only to make room for a more favourite name; yet, however conciliating the name ofPyroclesmight have been, that ofPericlescould challenge no advantage with regard to general predilection.—All circumstances therefore considered, it is not improbable that our author designed his chief character to be calledPyrocles, notPericles, however ignorance or accident might have shuffled the latter (a name of almost similar sound) into the place of the former."[283:B]

The probability of this happy conjecture will amount almost to certainty, if we diligently comparePericleswith thePyroclesof theArcadia; the same romantic, versatile, and sensitive disposition isascribed to both characters, and several of the incidents pertaining to the latter are found mingled with the adventures of the former personage, while, throughout the play, the obligations of its author to various other parts of the romance may be frequently and distinctly traced, not only in the assumption of an image or a sentiment, but in the adoption of the very words of his once popular predecessor, proving incontestably the poet's familiarity with and study of theArcadiato have been very considerable.[284:A]

Now this work of Sidney, commenced in 1580, was corrected and published by his sister the Countess of Pembroke, in 1590, and the admiration which it immediately excited would naturally induce a young actor, then meditating his first essay in dramatic poetry, instantly to avail himself of its popularity, and, by appropriating the appellation of its principal hero, fix the attention of the public. That Shakspeare long preserved his attachment to theArcadia, is evident from hisKing Lear, where the episode of Gloster and his sons is plainly copied from the first edition of this romance.[284:B]

The date assigned toPericles, on this foundation, being admitted, it follows of course, that Shakspeare could not have had time to improve upon the sketch of a predecessor; and yet from the texture of some parts of the composition, we are compelled to infer, that in this first effort in dramatic poetry, he must have condescended to accept the assistance of a friend, whose inferiority to himself is distinctly visible through the greater part of the first two acts, a position the probability of which seems to have induced Mr. Steevens to yield his assent to Dryden's assertion. "In one light, indeed, I am ready," remarks this acute commentator, "to allowPericleswas our poet'sfirstattempt. Before he was satisfied with his own strength, andtrusted himself to the publick, he might have tried his hand with apartner, and entered the theatre in disguise. Before he ventured to face an audience on the stage, it was natural that he should peep at them through the curtain."[285:A]

The objections which have been made to thispriorityofPericlesin point of time, may be reduced to three, of which the first is drawn from the non-enumeration of the play by Meres, when giving a list of our poet's dramas, in 1598.[285:B]But if it were the object of Shakspeare and his coadjutor to lie concealed from the public eye, of which there can be little doubt, since the former, as hath been remarked, having never owned his share in it, or supposing it to be forgotten, was afterwards willing to profit by the most valuable lines and ideas it contained[285:C], the omission of Meres is easily accounted for; yet granting that our author had been well known as the chief writer ofPericles, the validity of the objection is not thereby established, for we find in this catalogue neither the play ofKing Henry the Sixth, in any of its parts, nor the tragedy ofHamlet, pieces undoubtedly written and performed before the year 1598.

A second objection is founded on the title-page of the first edition ofPericles, published in 1609, where this drama is termed "thelateand much admired play."[285:D]It is obvious that from a word so indefinite in its signification aslate, whether taken adverbially or adjectively, nothing decisive can result. To a play written eighteen years before, the lexicographic definitions of the term in question, namely,in times past,not long ago,not far from the present, may, without doubt, justly apply; but we must also add, that it is uncertain whether the word is meant to refer to the period of the composition of the play, or to the date of its last representation;lately performedbeing most probably the sense in which the editor intended to be understood.

Lastly, Mr. Douce is of opinion that three of the devices of the knights in act the second, scene the second, ofPericles, are copied from a translation of theHeroicall Devises of Paradin and Symeon, printed in 1591, which, if correct, would necessarily bring forward the date of the play either to this or the subsequent year; but from this difficulty we are relieved even by Mr. Douce himself, who owns that two out of the three are to be found inWhitney's Emblems, published in 1586, a confession which leads us to infer that the third may have an equally early origin.[286:A]

From the extensive survey which has now been taken of the merits and supposed era of this early drama, the reader, it is probable, will gather sufficientdatafor concluding that by farthe greater part of it issued from the pen of Shakspeare, thatit was his first dramatic production, thatit appeared towards the close of the year 1590, and thatit deserves to be removed from the Appendix to the editions of Shakspeare, where it has hitherto appeared, and incorporated in the body of his works.

2.Comedy of Errors, 1591. That this play should be ascribed to the year 1591, and not to 1593, or 1596, has, we think, been fully established by Mr. Chalmers[286:B], to whom, therefore, the reader is referred, with this additional observation, that, from an account published in theBritish Bibliographer, of an interlude, namedJacke Jugeler, which was entered in the Stationers' books in 1562-3, it appears that theMenæchmiof Plautus, on which this comedy is founded, "was, in part at least, known at a very early period upon the English stage[286:C]," a further proof that versions or imitations of it had been in existence long prior to Warner's translation in 1595.

As theComedy of Errorsis one of the few plays of Shakspeare mentioned byMeresin 1598, and as we shall have occasion to refer more than once to the catalogue of this critic, it will be necessary, before we proceed farther in our arrangement, to give a transcript ofthis short but interesting article. It is taken from his "Palladis Tamia. Wit's Treasury. Being the second part of Wit's Common Wealth," 1598, and from that part of it entitled "A comparative discourse of our English Poets, with the Greeke, Latine, and Italian Poets."

"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latines, so Shakspeare, among yeEnglish, is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for comedy, witness his Gẽtlemẽ of Verona, his Errors, his Love Labor's Lost, his Love Labour's Wonne, his Midsummer's-Night Dreame, and his Merchant of Venice: for tragedy, his Richard the 2. Richard the 3. Henry the 4. King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet."[287:A]

Some of the commentators, and more particularly Ritson and Steevens, have positively pronounced this play to have been originally the composition of a writer anterior to Shakspeare, and that it merely received some embellishments from our poet's pen: "On a careful revision of the foregoing scenes," says the latter gentleman, "I do not hesitate to pronounce them the composition of two very unequal writers. Shakspeare had undoubtedly a share in them; but that the entire play was no work of his, is an opinion which (as Benedick says) 'fire cannot melt out of me; I will die in it at the stake.' Thus, as we are informed by Aulus Gellius, lib. iii. cap. 3. some plays were absolutely ascribed to Plautus which in truth had only been (retractatæetexpolitæ) retouched and polished by him."[287:B]

We have frequently occasion to admire the wit, the classical elegance, and the ingenuity of Mr. Steevens, but we have often also to regret the force of his prejudices, and the unqualified dogmatism of his critical opinions. That the business of theComedy of Errorsis better calculated for farce than for legitimate comedy, cannot bedenied; and it must also be confessed that the doggrel verses attributed to the two Dromios, contribute little to the humour or value of the piece; but let us, at the same time, recollect, that the admission of the latter was in conformity to the custom of the age in which this play was produced[288:A], and that the former, though perplexed and somewhat improbable[288:B], possesses no small share of entertainment.

This drama of Shakspeare is, in fact, much more varied, rich, and interesting in its incidents, than theMenæchmiof Plautus; and while in rigid adherence to the unities of action, time, and place, our poet rivals the Roman play, he has contrived to insinuate the necessary previous information for the spectator, in a manner infinitely more pleasing and artful than that adopted by the Latin bard, for whilst Plautus has chosen to convey it through the medium of a prologue, Shakspeare has rendered it at once natural and pathetic, by placing it in the mouth of Ægeon, the father of the twin brothers.

In a play of which the plot is so intricate, occupied in a great measure by mere personal mistakes, and their whimsical results, no elaborate developement of character can be expected; yet is the portrait of Ægeon touched with a discriminative hand, and the pressure of age and misfortune is so painted, as to throw a solemn, dignified, and impressive tone of colouring over this part of the fable, contrasting well with the lighter scenes which immediately follow, a mode of relief which is again resorted to at the close of the drama, where the re-union of Ægeon and Æmilia, and the recognition of their children, produce an interest in the denouëment, of a nature more affecting than the tone of the preceding scenes had taught us to expect.

As to the comic action which constitutes the chief bulk of this piece, if it be true that to excite laughter, awaken attention, and fixcuriosity, be essential to its dramatic excellence, theComedy of Errorscannot be pronounced an unsuccessful effort; both reader and spectator are hurried on to the close, through a series of thick-coming incidents, and under the pleasurable influence of novelty, expectation, and surprise; and the dialogue, so far from betraying the inequalities complained of by Ritson and Steevens, is uniformly vivacious, pointed, and even effervescing. Shakspeare is visible, in fact, throughout the entire play, as well in the broad exuberance of its mirth, as in the cast of its more chastised parts, a combination of which may be found in the punishment and character of Pinch the pedagogue and conjurer, who is sketched in the strongest and most marked style of our author.

If we consider, therefore, the construction of the fable, the narrowness of its basis, and that its powers of entertainment are almost exclusively confined to a continued deception of the external senses, we must confess that Shakspeare has not only improved on the Plautian model, but, making allowance for a somewhat too coarse vein of humour, has given to his production all the interest and variety that the nature and the limits of his subject would permit.

3.Love's Labour's Lost: 1591. In the first edition of Mr. Malone's Chronological Essay on Shakspeare's Plays, which was published in January, 1778, the year 1591 is the date assigned to this drama, an epoch, which, in the re-impression of 1793, was changed in the catalogue for the subsequent era of 1594, though the reasons given for this alteration appeared so inconclusive to the chronologist himself, that he ventures in the text merely to say,—"I think it probable, that our author's first draft of this play was written in orbefore1594[289:A]," a mode of expression which leaves as much authority to the former as the latter date. In short, the only motive brought forward for the present locality of this piece in Mr. Malone's list, where it appears posterior toA Midsummer-Night's Dream, theComedy of Errors, andThe Taming of the Shrew, is, that there is more attempt at delineation of character in it than in either the first or second of the plays just mentioned[290:A], a reason which loses all its weight the moment we seriously contrast this comedy with its supposed predecessors, for who would then think of assigning to the very slight sketches of Biron and Katharine, any mark of improvement, either in poetic or dramatic strength, over the imaginative powers of theMidsummer-Night's Dream, or the strong, broad, and often characteristic outlines ofThe Taming of the Shrew!

The construction, indeed, of the whole play, the variety of its versification, the abundancy of its rhymes, and the length and frequency of its doggrel lines, very clearly prove this comedy to be one of our author's very earliest compositions; indications whichoriginallydisposed Mr. Malone to give it to the year which we have adopted, and which induced Mr. Chalmers to assign it to 1592, though why he prefers this year to the preceding does not appear.

OfLove's Labour's Lost, as it was performed in the year 1591, we possess no exact transcript; for, in the oldest edition which has hitherto been found of this play, namely that of 1598, it is said in the title-page to benewly corrected and augmented, with the further information, that it had beenpresented before Her Highness the last Christmas; facts which show, that we are in possession not of the first draft or edition of this comedy, but only of that copy which represents it as it wasrevivedandimprovedfor the entertainment of the Queen, in 1597.

Theoriginal sketch, whether printed or merely performed, we conceive to have been one of the pieces alluded to by Greene, in 1592, when he accuses Shakspeare of beingan absolute Johannes fac-totumof the stage,primarilyandprincipallyfrom the mode of its execution, which, as we have already observed, betrays the earliness of its source in the strongest manner;secondarily, that, likePericles, it occasionally copies the language of theArcadia, then with all the attractivenoveltyof its reputation in full bloom[291:A], andthirdly, that in the fifth act, various allusions to the Muscovites or Russians, seem evidently to point to a period when Russia and its inhabitants attracted the public consideration, a period which we find, from Hackluyt[291:B], to have occupied the years 1590 and 1591, when, as Warburton and Chalmers have observed, the arrangement of Russian commerce engaged very particularly the attention, and formed the conversation, of the court, the city, and the country.[291:C]

It may be also remarked, that while no play among our author's works exhibits more decisive marks of juvenility thanLove's Labour's Lost, none, at the same time, is more strongly imbued with the peculiar cast of his youthful genius; for in style and manner, it bears a closer resemblance to theVenus and Adonis, theRape of Lucrece, and theearlier Sonnets, than any other of his genuine dramas. It presents us, in short, with a continued contest of wit and repartee, the persons represented, whether high or low, vying with each other, throughout the piece, in the production of the greatest number of jokes, sallies, and verbal equivoques. The profusion with which these are every-where scattered, has, unfortunately, had the effect of throwing an air of uniformity over all the characters, who seem solely intent on keeping up the ball of raillery; yet isBironnow and then discriminated by a few strong touches, andHolofernesis probably the portrait of an individual, some of his quotations having justly induced the commentators to infer, thatFlorio, the author ofFirstandSecond Fruits, dialogues in Italian and English, and of aDictionary, entitledA World of Words, was the object of the poet's satire.

If in dramatic strength of painting this comedy be deficient, and it appears to us, in this quality, inferior toPericles, we must, independent of the vivacity of its dialogue already noticed, acknowledge,that it displays several poetical gems, that it contains many just moral apophthegms, and that it affords, even in the closet, no small fund of amusement; and here it is worthy of being remarked, and may, indeed, without prejudice or prepossession, be asserted, that, even to the earliest and most unfinished dramas of our poet, a peculiar interest is felt to be attached, not arising from the fascination of a name, but from an intrinsic and almost inexplicable power of pleasing, which we in vain look for in the juvenile plays of other bards, and which serves, perhaps better than any other criterion, to ascertain the genuine property of Shakspeare; it is, in fact, a touchstone, which, when applied toTitus Andronicus, and what has been termed theFirst Partof Henry the Sixth, must, if every other evidence were wanting, flash conviction on our senses.

4.King Henry the Sixth: Part the First: 1592;

5.King Henry the Sixth: Part the Second: 1592:

It will be immediately perceived that this arrangement is intended to exclude what has very improperly, in modern times, been ascribed to Shakspeare as theFirst PartofHISKing Henry the Sixth. The spuriousness of this part, indeed, has been so satisfactorily proved by Mr. Malone, that no doubt can be supposed any longer to rest on the subject; and, if any lingered, it would be still further shaken by what has since transpired; for, from the discovery of Mr. Henslowe's Accounts, at Dulwich College, it appears that this play was never entitled, as Mr. Malone had conjectured, to its present appellation, but was simply styled as it is here entered,Henry the Sixth, and had no connection with the subsequent plays of Peele and Marlowe on the same reign. The entry is dated the 3d of March, 1591, and the play being the property of Lord Strange's company, and performed at the Rose theatre, with neither of which Shakspeare had, at any time, the smallest connection, render the external testimony still more confirmatory of Mr. Malone's position, as to the antiquity, priority, and insulated origin of this drama.[292:A]The internal evidence,however, is quite sufficient for the purpose; for the hand of Shakspeare is nowhere visible throughout the entire of this "Drum-and-trumpet-Thing," as Mr. Morgan has justly termed it.[293:A]Yet that our author, subsequent to his re-modellingThe first Part of the Contention, andThe True Tragedy of Richard Duke of Yorke, might alter the arrangement, or slightly correct the diction of this play, is very possible,—an interference, however trivial, which probably induced the editors of the first folio, from the period in which this design was executed, toregisterit with Shakspeare's undisputed plays, under the improper title ofThe Third Part of King Henry the Sixth.[293:B]

As this drama therefore, which we hold to contain not ten lines of Shakspeare's composition, was, when originally produced, calledThe Play of Henry the VI., and in 1623, registeredThe Third Part of King Henry the VI.; though, in the folio published during the same year, it was then for thefirsttime named thefirstpart, would it not be allowable to infer, that the two plays which our poet built on the foundations of Marlowe, or perhaps Marlowe, Peele, and Greene, though not printed before they appeared in the folio, were yet termed, not as they are designated in the modern editions, thesecondandthirdparts, but as we have here called them, thefirstandsecondparts? Such, in fact, appears to have been the case; for, since the publication of Mr. Malone's Essay, an entry on the Stationers' Registers has been discovered[293:C], made by Tho. Pavier, and datedApril, 19th, 1602, of "The 1st and 2d pts of Henry VI. ij. books[294:A];" which entry, whether it be supposed to apply to the originalContentionandTrue Tragedy, or to an intended edition of the same plays as altered by Shakspeare, clearly proves, that this designation offirstandsecondwas here given either to the primary or secondary set of these two plays, and, if applied to one set, would necessarily be applicable to, and used in speaking of, the other.

These two plays then, founded onThe First Part of the Contention of the Two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, and on theSecond, orThe true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, written by Marlowe and his friends about the year 1590[294:B], we conceive to have been brought forward by Shakspeare with great and numerous improvements, in 1592.

The vacillation of the commentators in determining the era of our author's two parts ofHenry the Sixth, has been very extraordinary. The year 1592 was fixed upon in 1778; this, in 1793, was changed to 1593, or 1594; and in 1803, to 1591; while Mr. Chalmers, in 1799, had adopted the date of 1595!

That these plays had received their new dress from the hand of Shakspeare, previous to September, 1592, is, we think, irreversibly established by Greene's parody, in hisGroatsworth of Wit, on a line in the second of these productions, an allusion which, with the context, can neither be set aside nor misapplied: that they were thus re-modelled in 1592, rather than in 1591, will appear highly probable, when we reflect that, in the passage where this parody is found, Shakspeare is termed, in reference to the stage,an absolute Johannes factotum, an epithet which, as we have before remarked,implies that our poet had written and altered several pieces before that period, and had the two parts ofHenry the Sixthbeen early in the series, that is, immediately subsequent toPericles, the indignation of Greene, no doubt, had been sooner expressed; for we find him writing with great warmth, under a sense of recent injury, and under the pressure of mortal disease; "albeit weakness," says he, "will scarce suffer me to write;" a time which certainly would not have been chosen for the annunciation of his anger, had the supposed offence been given, and it must have been known as soon as committed, a year or two before. We feel confident, therefore, from this chain of argument, that thetwo partsofHenry the Sixthincluded in our catalogue, were not brought on the stage before 1592, and then only just in time to enable poor Greene to express his sentiments ere he left this sublunary scene.

The plan which Mr. Malone has adopted in printing these plays, that of distinguishing the amended and absolutely new passages from the original and comparatively meagre text of Marlowe and his coadjutors, seems to have been caught from a hint dropped by Mr. Maurice Morgan, who, speaking of thesetwoparts of Henry VI., observes, that "they have certainly received what may be called athorough repair.—I should conceive, it would not be very difficult to feel one's way through these plays, and distinguish every where the metal from the clay."[295:A]

It will not be denied that the task thus suggested, has been carried into execution with much skill and discrimination, and furnishes a curious proof of the plastic genius and extraordinary powers of adaptation with which our poet was gifted in the very dawn of his career. Compared with the pieces which he had hitherto produced, a style of far greater dignity, severity, and tragic modulation, was to be formed, and accordingly those portions of these plays which emanated solely or in a high degree from the mind of Shakspeare,will be found in many instances even not inferior to the best parts of his latest and most finished works, while, at the same time, they harmonise sufficiently with the general tone of his predecessors, to preclude any flagrant breach of unity and consistency in the character of the diction and versification, though, to a practised critic, the superiority of our author, both in the fluency of his metre, and the beauty and facility of his expression, may be readily discerned.

Contrary to the common opinion, a strong and correct delineation of character appears to us the most striking feature in the two parts of this historical drama. That sainted, but powerless phantom, Henry of Lancaster, interests our feelings, notwithstanding the imbecillities of his public conduct, by the pious endurance of his sufferings, and the philosophic pathos of his sentiments. How much his patient sorrow and plaintive morality, depicted as they are amid the desolations of warfare, arrest and fascinate our attention by the power of contrast, perhaps no apathy can refuse to acknowledge. Mournfully sweet, indeed, are the strains which flow from this unhappy monarch, when, for an instant retired from the horrors of the Field of Towton, he pours forth the anguish of his soul, and closes his reflections with a picture of rural repose, glowing with such a mellow and lovely light amid the shades of regal misery which surround it, as to awaken sensations that steal through the bosom with a holy and delicious warmth.

Between this character, and that of Richard of Gloucester in the same play, what a strength of contrast! so decided is the opposition, indeed, that not a shadow, not an atom of assimilation exists. The ferocious wickedness of this hypocritical and sarcastic villain is as vividly and distinctly drawn in theSecondorLast Part of Henry the Sixthas in the tragedy ofRichard the Third, the soliloquies in Acts the third and fifth as clearly developing the structure of his mind as any scene of the play distinguished by his regal title.

Nor do the other leading personages of these dramas exhibit less striking touches of the strong characterisation peculiar to our poet. The portraits of King Edward, and Queen Margaret, of the Dukesof York and Warwick, of Humphrey of Gloster and Cardinal Beaufort, are alike faithful to history and to nature, while the death of the ambitious prelate is unparalleled for its awful sublimity, its terrific delineation of a tortured conscience; a scene, of which the impressions are so overpowering, that, to adopt the language of Dr. Johnson, "the superficial reader cannot miss them, the profound can image nothing beyond them."[297:A]

As these two parts, therefore, whether we consider the original text, or the numerous alterations and additions of Shakspeare, hold a rank greatly superior to the elder play of

Back to Index Next