Have in our armours watch'd the winter's night; Glo. I'll blaft his harveft, if your head were lay'd; For yet I am not look'd on in the world. This fhoulder was ordain'd fo thick, to heave; queen; And kifs your princely nephew, brothers both. Queen. 9 Thanks, noble Clarence; worthy brother, thanks. Glo. And, that I love the tree from whence thou fprang ft, Witnefs the loving kifs I give the fruit: To say the truth, fo Judas kifs'd his maffer; And cry'd-all hail! when as he meant-all Afide. harm. K. Edw. Now am I feated as my foul delights, Having my country's peace, and brothers' loves. • Work thou the way, and that fhalt execute.] I believe we should read: and this fhall execute. Richard laying his hand on his forehead fays: Work thou the way then bringing down his hand, and beholding it, and this ball execute. Though that may ftand, the arm being included in the shoulder. The quartos read: Work thou the awey, and thou shalt execute. JOHNSON I fuppofe he fpeaks the line, first touching his bead, and then looking on his band. STEEVENS. 9 Thanks, nobie Clarence; worthy brother, thanks.] This line has been given to king Edward: but I have, with the old quarto, restored it to the queen. THEOBALD. Pp2 Clar Clar. What will your grace have done with Mar garet? Reignier, her father, to the king of France And hither have they fent it for her ransom. K. Edw. Away with her, and waft her hence to And now what refts, but that we spend the time [Exeunt omnes. A lift of the feveral battles, fought between the houses of York and Lancaster, may poffibly be thought no incurious addition to the notes on this play. 1. The battle of St. Albans, between Richard duke of York, and king Henry; in which the latter was defeated and made prifoner; 23d May, 1455. 2. The battle of Bloreheath (in Shopshire) between Richard earl of Salisbury (for York) and James lord Audley (for Lan: cafter); in which the latter was defeated and flain; 23d September, 1459. 3. The battle of Northampton, between the earls of March and Warwick, and king Henry; in which the king was again defeated and made prifoner; 10th July, 1460. 4. The battle of Wakefield, between Richard duke of York, and queen Margaret; in which the former was defeated and flain; 30th December, 1460. 5. The battle of Mortimer's Crofs, between Edward duke of York, and Jafper earl of Pembroke; in which the latter was defeated; 1450. 6. The second battle of St. Alban's, between queen Margaret and the earl of Warwick; in which the latter was defeated; Shrove Tuesday, 17th February, 1460, 7. The action of Ferrybridge, between the lord Clifford (for Lancaster) and the lord Fitzwater (for York); in which the latter was surprised and killed, Clifford, and almost all his party being flain in their retreat; 28th March, 1461. S. The Battle of Towton, between king Edward and king Henry; in which the latter was defeated, and 36,000 men were flain; Palm Sunday-eve, 29th March, 1461. 9. The battle of Hedgeley Moor (in Northumberland), be tween the lord Montacute (for York), and the lords Hungerford and Roos, Sir Ralph Percy and others (for Lancaster); in which the Lancaftrians were defeated, and Percy flain; 25th April, 1463. 10. The battle of Hexham, between the lord Montacute and king Henry, in which the latter was defeated; 15th May, 1463. 11. The battle of Hedgecote (Banbury, or Cotswold), between the earl of Pembroke (for king Edward), and the lords Fitzhugh and Latimer, and Sir John Conyers, (for the earl of Warwick, on the part of Lancaster); in which the former was defeated, 29th July, 1469. 12. The battle of Stamford (Lofecoatfield), between Sir Robert Wells (for Warwick), and king Edward, in which the former was defeated; 1469. 13. The battle of Barnet, between king Edward and the earl of Warwick; in which, the latter was defeated and flain; (Eafter Sunday) 14th April, 1471. 14. The battle of Tewksbury, between king Edward and queen Margaret; in which the latter was defeated and made prifoner: 3d May, 1471. REMARKS. The three parts of Henry VI. are fufpected, by Mr. Theobald, of being fuppofititious, and are declared, by Dr. Warburton, to be certainly not Shakfpeare's. Mr. Theobald's fufpicion arifes from fome obfolete words; but the phrafeology is like the reit of our author's style, and single words, of which however I do not obferve more than two, can conclude little. Dr. Warburton gives no reafon, but I fuppofe him to judge upon deeper principles and more comprehenfive views, and to draw his opinion from the general effect and fpirit-of the compofition, which he thinks inferior to the other hiftorical plays. From mere inferiority nothing can be interred; in the productions of wit there will be inequality. Sometimes judgment will err, and fometimes the matter itlelf will defeat the artift. Of every author's works one will be the beft, and one will be the wort. The colours are not equally pleafing, nor the attitudes equally graceful, in all the pictures of Titian or Reynolds. Diflimilitude of fiyle and heterogeneoufnefs of fentiment, may fufficiently how that a work does not really belong to the reputed author. But in these plays no fuch marks of fpuriouinets are found. The diction, the verfification, and the figures, are Shakspeare's. Thefe plays, confidered, without regard to cha racters and incidents, merely as narratives in verfe, are more happily conceived and more accurately finifhed than those of king John, Richard II. or the tragic fcenes of Henry IV. and V. If we take thefe plays from Shakspeare, to whom fhall they be given ? What author of that age had the fame eatinets of expreffion and fluency of numbers ? 7 Having Having confidered the evidence given by the plays themselves, and found it in their favour, let us now enquire what corroboration can be gained from other teftimony. They are afcribed to Shakspeare by the firft editors, whofe atteftation may be received in questions of fact, however unfkilfully they fuperinteded their edition. They feem to be declared genuine by the voice of Shak fpeare himself, who refers to the fecond play in his epilogue te Henry V. and apparently connects the first act of Richard III. with the last of the third part of Henry VI. If it be objected that the plays were popular, and that therefore he alluded to them as well known; it may be answered, with equal probability, that the natural paffions of a poet would have difpofed him to leparate his own works from thofe of an inferior hand. And, indeed, if an author's own teftimony is to be overthrown by fpeculative criticifin, no man can be any longer fecure of literary reputa tion. Of these three plays I think the fecond the beft. The truth is, that they have not fufficient variety of action, for the incidents are too often of the fame kind; yet many of the charac. ters are well difcriminated. King Henry and his queen, king Edward, the duke of Gloucester, and the earl of Warwick, are very strongly and distinctly painted. The old copies of the two latter parts of Henry VI. and of Henry V. are fo apparently imperfect and mutilated, that there is no reafon for fuppofing them the first draughts of Shakspeare. I am inclined to believe them copies taken by fome auditor who wrote down, during the reprefentation, what the time would per mit, then perhaps filled up fome of his omiffions at a fecond or third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed fomething like a play, fent it to the printer. JOHNSON. So, Heywood, in the Preface to his Rape of Lucrece, (fourth im preflion), 1630: 66 -for though fome have used a double fale of their la bours, first to the flage and after to the prefs, for my own part I here proclaim myself ever faithful to the first, and never guilty of the laft: yet fince fome of my plays have (unknown to me, and without any of my direction.) accidentally come into the printer's hands, and therefore fo corrupt and mangled (copied only by the ear), that I have been as unable to know them as afhamed to challenge them. This therefore I was the willinger, &c." COLLINS. Dr. Johnfon's conjecture is likewife confirmed by a prologue of Thomas Heywood's to a play of his intitled, If you know not me you know Nobody, 1623: 66 'Twas ill nurft, "And yet received as well perform'd at first, "So So much, that fome by fenography drew "The plot, put it in print; fcarce one word true: "And in that lameness it has limp'd fo long, "The author now, to vindicate that wrong, "Hath took the pains upright upon its feet "To teach it walk-so please you fit and fee it." MALONE. There is another circumftance which may ferve to strengthen this fuppofition, viz. that most of the fragments of Latin veries, omitted in the quartos, are to be found in the folio; and when any of them are inferted in the former, they are fhamefully corrupted and miffpelt. The auditor, who underflood English, might be unfkill'd in any other language. STEEVENS. I have already given fome reafons, why I cannot belive, that thefe plays were originally written by Shakspeare. The question, who did write them? is at beft but an argument ad ignorantiam. We must remember, that very many old plays are anonymous; and that play-writing was fcarcely yet thought reput able; nay, fome authors exprefs for it great horrors of repentance. I will attempt, however, at fome future time, to aniwer this question: the difquifition of it would be too long for this place. One may at least argue, that the plays were not written by Shakspeare, from Shakspeare himself. The Chorus at the end of Henry V. addreffes the audience -For their fake, "In your fair minds let this acceptance take." But it could be neither agreeable to the poet's judgment or his modefty, to recommend his new play from the merit and fuccefs of Henry VI.!His claim to indulgence is, that, though bending and unequal to the task, he has ventured to purfue the fory: and this fufficiently accounts for the connection of the whole, and the allufions of particular pallages. FARMER. It is feldom that Dr. Farmer's arguments fail to enforce con viction; but here, perhaps, they may want fomewhat of their ufual weight. I think that Shakspeare's bare mention of thefe pieces is a fufficient proof they were his. That they were fo, could be his only motive for inferring benefit to himself from the fpectator's recollection of their patt fuccefs. For the fake of three historical dramas of mine which have already afforded you entertainment, let me (fays he) intreat your indulgence to a fourth. Surely this was a stronger plea in his behalf than any arifing from the kind reception which another might have already met with in the fame way of writing. Shakspeare's claim to favour is founded on his having previoufly given pleature in the courfe of three of thofe hiftories; because he is a bending, fupplicatory author, and not a literary bully, like Ben Jonfon; and because he has ventured to exhibit a feries of annals in a fuite of plays, an attempt which 'till then had not received the fanction of the stage. I hope |