*KING HENRY VI. PART I.] The hiftorical transaction contained in this play, take in the compass of above thirty years. I must observe, however, that our author, in the three parts of Henry VI. has not been very precise to the date and difpofition of his facts; but fhuffled them, backwards and forwards, out of time. For inftance; the lord Talbot is killed at the end of the fourth Act of this play, who in reality did not fall till the 13th of July, 1453 and The Second Part of Henry V1. opens with the marriage of the king, which was folemnized eight years before Talbot's death, in the year 1445. Again, in the Second Part, dame Eleanor Cobham is introduced to infult Queen Margaret; though her penance and banishment for forcery happened three years before that princess came over to England. I could point out many other tranfgreffions againft hiftory, as far as the order of time is concerned. Indeed, though there are several mafter-strokes in these three plays, which inconteftibly betray the workmanship of Shakspeare; yet I am almost doubtful, whether they were entirely of his writing. And unless they were wrote by him very early, I fhould rather imagine them to have been brought to him as a director of the ftage; and so have received fome finishing beauties at his hand. An accurate observer will eafily fee, the diction of them is more obfolete, and the numbers more mean and profaical, than in the generality of his genuine compofitions. THEOBALD. Having given my opinion very fully relative to these plays at the end of The Third Part of King Henry VI. it is here only neceffary to apprize the reader what my hypothefis is, that he may be the better enabled, as he proceeds, to judge concerning its probability. Like many others, I was long ftruck with the many evident Shakspearianifms in these plays, which appeared to me to carry fuch decifive weight, that I could fcarcely bring myself to examine with attention any of the arguments that have been urged against his being the author of them. I am now fur prized, (and my readers perhaps may fay the fame thing of themfelves,) that I fhould never have adverted to a very striking circumstance which diftinguishes this first part from the other parts of King Henry VI. This circumftance is, that none of these Shak perian paffages are to be found here, though several are fcattered through the two other parts. I am therefore decifively of opinion that this play was not written by Shakspeare. The reafons on which that opinion is founded, are ftated at large in the Differtation above referred to. But I would here request the reader to attend particularly to the versification of this piece, (of which almost every line has a pause at the end,) which is fo different from that of Shakspeare's undoubted plays, and of the greater part of the two fucceeding pieces as altered by him, and fo exactly correfponds with that of the tragedies written by others before and about the time of his firft commencing author, that this alone might decide the question, without taking into the account the numerous claffical allufions which are found in this first part. The reader will be enabled to judge how far this argument deferves attention, from the feveral extracts from those ancient piéces which he will find in the Effay on this fubject. With respect to the second and third parts of King Henry VI. or, as they were originally called, The Contention of the Two famous Houfes of Yorke and Lancaster, they ftand, in my apprehenfion, on a very different ground from that of this first part, or, as I believe it was anciently called, The Play of King Henry VI-The Contention, &c. printed in two parts, in quarto, 1600, was, I conceive, the production of fome playwright who preceded, or was contemporary with Shakspeare; and out of that piece he formed the two plays which are now denominated the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI.; as, out of the old plays of King John and The Taming of the Shrew, he formed two other plays with the fame titles. For the reafons on which this opinion is formed, I muft again refer to my Effay on this fubject. This old play of King Henry VI. now before us, or as our author's editors have called it, the first part of King Henry VI. I suppose, to have been written in 1589, or before. See An Attempt to afcertain the Order of Shakspeare's Plays, Vol. II. The difpofition of facts in these three plays, not always correfponding with the dates, which Mr. Theobald mentions, and the want of uniformity and confiftency in the series of events exhibited, may perhaps be in fome measure accounted for by the hypothefis now ftated. As to our author's having accepted these pieces as a Director of the ftage, he had, I fear, no pretension to fuch a fituation at fo early a period. MALONE. The chief argument on which the first paragraph of the fore going note depends, is not, in my opinion, conclufive. This hiftorical play might have been one of our author's earliest dramatick efforts and almost every young poet begins his career by imitation. Shakspeare, therefore, till he felt his own ftrength, perhaps fervilely conformed to the ftyle and manner of his predeceffors. Thus, the captive eaglet described by Rowe : 66 a while endures his cage and chains, "And like a prifoner with the clown remains : "But when his plumes shoot forth, his pinions fwell, "He quits the ruftick and his homely cell, "Breaks from his bonds, and in the face of day "Full in the fun's bright beams he foars away." What further remarks I may offer on this fubject, will appear in the form of notes to Mr. Malone's Effay, from which I do not wantonly differ,-though hardily, I confefs, as far as my fentiments may seem to militate against those of Dr. Farmer. STEEVENS. King Henry the Sixth. Duke of Glofter, Uncle to the King, and Protector. Duke of Bedford, uncle to the King, and Regent of France. Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, great Uncle to the King. Henry Beaufort, great Uncle to the King, Bishop of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerfet; afterwards, Duke. Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March. Sir John Faftolfe. Sir William Lucy. Sir William Glanfdale. Sir Thomas Gargrave. Mayor of London. Woodville, Lieutenant of the Tower. Vernon, of the White Rofe, or York Faction. Baffet, of the Red Rofe, or Lancaster Faction. Charles, Dauphin, and afterwards King of France. Reignier, Duke of Anjou, and titular King of Naples. An old Shepherd, Father to Joan la Pucelle. Countess of Auvergne. Joan la Pucelle, commonly called Joan of Arc. |