into that play upon antitheses and points (in imitation of Italian writers) where verse corresponds to verse, and line to line, and is occasionally spun out to excess (for instance in the scene between King Edward and Lady Grey, part iii., act iii. 2). Still, all these defects do not prove what has been inferred from them; and, in the first place, it is wrong to compare these plays with Shakspeare's later masterpieces. As the first experiment of a young poet in the difficult domain of historical drama, they show such eminent talent, and so far surpass all dramas on historical subjects previously written, that no work of the same date can in any way equal them, at all events none have hitherto been pointed out. Malone further misses what he calls 'Shakspearian passages,' that is, those brilliant passages where the fulness of Shakspeare's genius relieves itself in sudden flashes. I have already pointed out some passages of this kind, for instance, Richard's well-known and deeply significant words: I am myself alone; but, upon the whole, they certainly do occur less frequently than in Shakspeare's later works. However, to some extent, this can be accounted for by the fact that the plays describe a portion of history which, being wholly wanting in great and eminent characters, as well as in ethical motives and important aims, offered but little opportunity for higher flights of thought. But Malone's objection again more particularly overlooks the fact that the plays are the first attempts of a young poet, and that even genius does not sparkle and shine purely from within itself, but that— like the poorest of minds-it requires development, both schooling and training. Shakspeare did not receive this training till he came to London, and moreover had, at the same time, to endeavour to make all possible good use of his talent in order to obtain the necessaries of life. It was not Shakspeare's good fortune, like Goethe, to enter upon his artistic career with a well-prepared mind and ample means, and yet even in Goethe's Mitschuldigen and in his Laune des Verliebten, there is as little trace of those flashes of genius of which we have such an abundance in his later works. The smaller the number of the 'Shakspearian passages,' the more numerous, in Malone's opinion, are the deviations from historical truth, and these are said to be more numerous, and more important than Shakspeare has elsewhere ventured to make. But Malone urges more especially those contradictions (already cursorily mentioned) between the first part of 'Henry VI.' and the two following parts, and between the last part and 'Richard III.' However, apart from the fact that, as Malone himself elsewhere* points out, similar differences and deviations occur in all of Shakspeare's other dramas, the censured contradictions, as already said, refer to such unimportant, secondary circumstances, that the poet-who wrote for a sympathetic audience and not for critical readers— did not require to pay any regard to them. They can moreover, in some degree, be explained by the fact that the first part of Henry VI.' was probably a subsequent addition to the other two parts, and that all three parts are, as regards date, separated from Richard III by a longer space of time than is generally assumed. Nevertheless, it is again true that in 'Henry VI.' we find more numerous deviations from the historical authorities which Shakspeare made use of than in his later historical plays. But apart from the fact that, as already observed,† Malone and his successors, down to Courtenay and Gervinus, have accused Shakspeare of inaccuracies and deviations of which he was not guilty, the historical subject in the present cases absolutely demanded a freer treatment, if it was to be brought successfully into a dramatic form. And if Shakspeare, in making use of this licence, has occasionally exceeded the demand required and allowed by the law of the historical drama—which, however, has not been proved-this again was owing to a want of experience, a want of mental and artistic culture; in short, it was his youthful immaturity that prevented him from penetrating into, and artistically mastering the traditional subject in such a manner as to conform to the laws of dramatic form without making considerable alterations. *Reed's Shakspeare, t. xiv. p. 224 f. 236 f. * Accordingly, of all Malone's arguments there remain only those concerning the language and versification. Here Malone is perfectly right, in so far as the diction in 'Henry VI.' is more obsolete, the rhythm of the verse more prosaic, rhymes of less frequent occurrence, and-we add-the language in general of a dryer, more colourless and more unpoetical character, even than in those plays which are acknowledged to be among Shakspeare's earliest works; in fact, as Dyce says, the two plays are written in the manner of an older school.' But this remark, far from proving their spuriousness, speaks rather in favour of their genuineness. I have already shown that 'The First Part of the Contention was brought upon the stage, at latest, in 1591, and that The True Tragedie,' which was a well-known piece in 1592, must have directly followed it. Hence, in whatever connection the two plays may be placed with the second and third parts of Henry VI.,' the trilogy bearing this title must be reckoned among the earliest works of Shakspeare; and the above-mentioned peculiarities of the language prove only that they were probably written even before 1591. At all events -and this is undisputed and indisputable-if they were written by Shakspeare, they were his first attempts in historical drama. Now, as I think, it would be far more astonishing and would offer more occasion for doubt, if the early works of young Shakspeare-who, as already said, had in London to make up for his want of school training and to pursue his artistic studies-had not followed the best and favourite models of his day, and if his plays had not been written in the manner of the 'older school which he found existing. For instance, a painting said to be by Rafaelle and belonging to as early a date as 1500, would, by every connoisseur, at once be declared to be spurious, were it to show no trace of Perugino's style, and simply the characteristics of the mature Rafaelle. Now as Perugino was Rafaelle's model, so Marlowe and Greene-who towards 1590 were the most popular * In his Chronology of Shakspeare's plays. dramatic poets were doubtless the masters whom young Shakspeare took as his models. In fact, Titus Andronicus,' to which the plays under discussion show unmistakable resemblance-not only in spirit and character, but also in language and versification-exhibits even greater affinity to Marlowe's style. And if this affinity to the older school' is more distinctly apparent in 'Titus Andronicus' than in those plays universally acknowledged to be Shakspeare's youthful works, it is to be accounted for simply by the fact that all the other pieces were comedies, in regard to which Shakspeare did not find any such generally recognised or worthy models as were presented by Marlowe for tragedy and history. It may also be that young Shakspeare felt that historical truthwhich from the first he had respected more than his predecessors demanded that in a historical play, the language should not differ too much from that of his historical authority, and that poetical embellishments, high-sounding and pathetic diction should be moderated; in short, that historical truth called for a more antique and subdued colouring. On the other hand, the circumstance of the plays so directly following the older school, and in part, therefore, bearing some of its faults, might have been the means of preserving their antique character. After Shakspeare had added the first part to the last two parts of his Henry VI.,' which were probably written last,—as may be assumed from the appearance of The First Part of the Contention' and 'The True Tragedie '-these plays, being greatly eclipsed by Richard III., Richard II.,' and Henry IV.,' etc., may no longer have proved so attractive on the stage, although, as popular pieces with the multitude, they were doubtless still often performed during the first ten years of the century. Shakspeare, accordingly, may not have found either outward or inward occasion to make the 'adicyons' and revisions which in those days it was customary to make when a play was revived, and which doubtless he bestowed upon the majority of the works belonging to the first period of his poetical career, but which were difficult to make without completely reconstructing the whole play. This is why, · 6 6 as I think, there are no quartos of the three parts of Henry VI.,' and indeed why there never were any, for there is no mention of them among the entries at Stationers' Hall. They probably ceased to be performed, at a later day, on Shakspeare's own stage, whereas the second and third parts which, in the form of 'The First Part of the Contention,' and of The True Tragedie,' had come into the possession of the Earl of Pembroke's company, may still have been frequently given on this inferior stage and have found acceptance with its public. 6 The last-mentioned circumstance leads to the consideration of the external reasons why Shakspeare may be considered the author of the two plays. As regards the three parts of Henry VI.,' they are externally as well authenticated as any other play bearing Shakspeare's name. Heminge and Condell have unhesitatingly and unconditionally admitted them into their edition of Shakspeare's works (the well-known folio of 1623), although they might easily have expressed their doubts that the plays had only been remodelled by Shakspeare. Heminge and Condell were friends and companions of Shakspeare's, to whom, in his will, he left small sums of money for the purchase of rings; they had acted with him for many years, and no doubt even in Shakspeare's own plays; hence they ought and must have possessed accurate and authentic knowledge of his works. It is also evident that they did not act either carelessly or thoughtlessly as regards the collection of the materials for their edition of the poet's works. For not only did they not accept any of those pieces in which it is perfectly clear that Shakspeare had no share - although some of these, as we shall presently see, were printed with his name in full on the title-page-but they also left out plays which had a strong claim to be considered genuine and which likewise had been publicly ascribed to him during his own lifetime; their reason for acting thus may have been because they were nevertheless doubtful as to the origin of the plays,-perhaps, however, because they had simply forgotten them, as in the case of Troilus and Cressida.' In addition to the testimony of Heminge ? |