the representation of the imprisonment of Clarence, and by the funeral procession of Henry VI., with the Lady Anne as mourner; the preceding drama decidedly affects the following one, and conversely, the latter was prepared in the former. In short, we could scarcely have a more evident proof that the poet's intention was to represent history in one continuous flow, from Richard II. down to Henry VIII.

I even go so far as to think that Shakspeare's deviations from actual history, more especially those in regard to chronology, which he might otherwise have avoided,* were made with a view of giving a vivid representation of both the inner and the outer connection of the greater whole, and of the ideal character, the ethical significance of the events in the several parts. These deviations refer of course only to such points in which he has differed from the chronicles and popular histories of his day, to the exclusion of all such corrections as have been gained by modern investigations. It was only such sources that Shakspeare wished to and could follow, owing to the character of dramatic poetry, which is necessarily popular; he could not have adopted the results of learned historiography even though-what was not generally the casethese had existed at his time. That Shakspeare was perfectly conscious of this himself, is evident from the earlier titles of some of his historical plays; for instance, that of Henry V.' in the quarto of 1608, The Chronicled History of Henry, etc., for which reason R. Brome, in one of his comedies,† not unjustly speaks in a very general way of Shakspeare's chronicled histories. Accordingly, the poet cannot be reproached for having in Henry VI.' (in the dispute about the ransom of the Earl of March, Glendower's prisoner) confounded the two earls Edmund of March with one another, and for making Mordake a son of Archibald, Earl of Douglas; for the confusion exists in Holinshed's Chronicle, and the poet was led into the error by a misprint in the same chronicle. For the same

* Gervinus has adopted this thought from the second edition of my work, and worked it out in his own way, more especially in regard to Henry VI.

†The Antipodes (1608).

reason, it cannot be considered a violation of historical truth when, in Richard II.,' Shakspeare lays the death of the dethroned king to the account of Henry IV., for in the poet's day this was the general opinion supported by the statements in the chronicles, although recent investigations, may have come to a different conclusion. Nevertheless it remains true that Richard's death was a consequence of Bolingbroke's rebellion and of his own dethronement. The same applies to some other facts which I shall pass over, as the dramatist must be left entirely free as regards all accidental and secondary circumstances in history. Hence he scarcely deserves to be found fault with even though he should occasionally contradict himself in some such points, as, for instance, when in 'Henry VI.' he allows Clifford to fall by the hand of the Duke of York and yet afterwards speaks of him as having fallen with others by the sword of common soldiers, or again when, in 'Richard III.' the same Sir John Grey whom Henry VI. erroneously mentions among the adherents of the House of York, is accounted one of the Lancastrian party.

On the other hand, it is a violation of historical truth, even though but a slight one, that Henry Percy, who was not much younger than Henry IV., is, by Shakspeare, made of the same age as Prince Henry, and defeated and killed by him. The Chronicles know nothing about this heroic deed: according to them Percy fell by an unknown hand; and yet the unknown hand of historical tradition might have been that of the Prince, who was afterwards Henry V. The drama required that Percy should fall by the hand of Henry, because the poet had here to give an intimation of the heroic career which was subsequently to be depicted, and also to give the chief character of the play its proper relation to the whole, and thus to place its meaning and significance in a clear light. The inaccuracies in 'Henry VI.' and in 'Richard III.' are more important.*

* Courtenay, Gervinus, Kressig, and the early English critics, here again accuse the poet of several deviations from the Chronicles, of which he is not guilty, and which are founded only upon their own superficial study of his historical authorities. Of this I have already given an example in the love affair between Suffolk and Queen Margaret, which Qechelhäuser (l. c.) has illustrated more fully by some other instances.

It is true that they are partly intentional deviations from` history,* and accordingly prove what indeed is scarcely in need of proof, that the young, untutored Shakspeare, who had no adequate models, did not yet possess the power of artistically solving the difficult task which he had undertaken of dramatising the excessive wealth and scattered state of the subject-matter presented by the reign of Henry VI. (embracing as it did intrigues the threads of which were hidden, and incidents that were ever thwarting one another) without injuring the historical truth. Most of the deviations attributed to the poet are, however, unjust, for they are deviations only from chronology, or were necessary for giving artistic finish to the subjectmatter, or, again, were made only because the poet, fʊr the sake of the higher historical truth, wished and was obliged to connect the separate dramas into one great, cyclic whole. I pass over the circumstance that Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, the rightful heir to the English crown, was not-as Shakspeare represents, and as Hall and Holinshed report-kept for many years in prison, but that he stood in favour with Henry IV. and Henry V. For even though Shakspeare may have known Hardyng's history, we could not possibly expect that he should have made a careful investigation as to which account was erroneous. He justly followed that historian of whose report he could make poetical use; and in the present case he absolutely required a proof in confirmation of Richard Plantagenet's (afterwards Duke of York) claim to the English throne; lastly, the poet was also obliged to reawaken the remembrance of the unjust dethronement of Richard II. by Henry IV., which was the original disturbance of the course of history. This is why, as I have

* Among these—with Gervinus—I reckon the triple reproach of cowardice which is cast upon Falstolfe, the retaking of Orleans by Talbot, the attack upon Rouen, and Margaret's being made a prisoner by Suffolk. These incidents, which Shakspeare's authorities do not mention, are pure inventious of the poet, and, together with the description of the war which throughout represents the English in so favourable a light, may probably be accounted for by his youthful and extravagant patriotism, and also by the spirit of violent hatred against France which affected all minds in England at the time (1590).

already observed, the conversation between Edmund and Richard is indispensable.

་

The most flagrant offences against chronology are: that the peace between Philip of Burgundy and Charles VII. was not concluded till 1435, hence that Joan of Arc (who was burnt in 1431) could not have taken any part in it; that Talbot's death did not occur before, but eight years after the marriage of Henry VI. with Margaret of Anjou, and that, conversely, the punishment and banishment of the Duchess Eleanor of Gloster took place three years before Margaret's arrival in England, so that the former could not possibly have been insulted by the latter. Yet these very anachronisms do not really disturb the truth of history; and they appear justified in so far as Shakspeare required a definite centre for the war represented in the First Part of Henry VI.,' which centre was after all furnished historically* by the life and death of Talbot; moreover, the manifold changes of the war could not possibly have been dragged through several dramas. For the same reason, that is, for the sake of the artistic arrangement of the whole, the poet could not break the connection between the principal events of the internal history of England, and therefore was obliged to introduce Margaret's arrival and Eleanor's punishment in the same play. The scene in which the Queen boxes the ears of the Duchess throws great light upon the important character of Queen Margaret, her arrogance and love of dominion, her violence and inconsiderate harshness, and is also the motive of the subsequent behaviour of the Duchess, so that even this poetical licence may well be excused. Lastly, the dramatic economy required a centre and a leader for the royal or Lancastrian party-which indeed was represented by Henry VI., but which he was utterly incapable to direct. On this account Shakspeare not only makes Margaret take the reins of government into her own

In order to bring this centre more prominently forward, and to throw more glory upon the English popular hero, Shakspeare has also interwoven the story of the Countess of Auvergne, which the Chronicles have left unreported, but which popular tradition probably put into the poet's hands. At all events the story has quite the character of a traditional anecdote.

VOL. II.

U

L

V

hands earlier than was historically the case, but also implicates her in the intrigues and conspiracy formed against the life of the Duke of Gloster.*

The greatest anachronism, however, unquestionably lies in the appearance of Richard (afterwards the Third), as early as the time of the battles of St. Albans, Wakefield, and Saxton. For towards 1455 Richard was only between two and three years of age, and therefore in 1460 and 1461 somewhere about nine years old. But this very point is the clearest proof of the poet's intention to place the chief incidents in Henry VI.' in direct connection with the following drama, the fifth act of the great tragedy. Without some such purpose it would be inexplicable why he introduced Richard in 'Henry VI.' at all. For it is, indeed, historically certain that young Edward, Henry's son, was murdered by Richard and his brother George (Clarence); and it is still the general belief that Henry VI. himself fell by Richard's dagger. But as regards the first case, Shakspeare might have simply required the person of Clarence, and in the second might, without being untrue to history, have also left Richard out of the question. At all events there was no necessity for making him take part in the earlier transactions of the war. If, on the other hand, we maintain it to have been the poet's clearly expressed intention to form the different dramas into one great whole, then in 'Henry VI.' he certainly was

*When Gervinus not only acquits the Queen of this crime, but even maintains that it has not been historically proved that Gloster was murdered by Suffolk and the Bishop of Winchester, he is right, in so far as Holinshed clearly accuses Cardinal Winchester of all kinds of secret plots against the noble Duke Humphrey, which in the end prove his death. Holinshed further says: The Queen, persuaded by these means, first of all excluded the duke of Glocester from all rule and governance, not prohibiting such as she knew to be his mortal foes to invent and imagine causes and griefs against him and his, insomuch that by his procurement, diverse noblemen conspired against him. Of which diverse writers affirm the Marquis of Suffolk, and the Duke of Buckingham to be the chief, not unpre cured by the Cardinal of Winchester and the Archbishop of York.' Again, after giving an account of Suffolk's death, he adds: This end had William de la Poole, Duke of Suffolk (as men judge by God's Providence, for that he had procured the death of that good duke of Glocester, as before is partly touched.'

1