bathos, as for example, King Henry's speech to the Lieutenant of the Tower on his coming out from his imprisonment : Master lieutenant, now that God and friends At our enlargement what are thy due fees? 1 Of the crude realism of the writing the following lines are specimens. Thus when the King swoons, Somerset exclaims: Rear up his body: wring him by the nose: and Warwick, when the Cardinal, who has murdered Duke Humphrey, lies dying, remarks: See how the pangs of death do make him grine, And another example might be mentioned in the coarse treatment of La Pucelle. The contributions by Shakespeare, which can, I think, be readily traced by the style, have been made with the twofold object of illustrating the history and preparing the way for his Richard III. In Part I. his hand seems to me only to appear in the scene in the Temple garden (ii. 4), where the subject of the white and red rose has evidently appealed to his fancy. In Part II. the Cade scenes (iv. 2-10) must be by Shakespeare, as seems to be generally held. They give him an opportunity, of which he never fails to take advantage, of showing the political incompetence of the populace, and the exuberant humour is typical of his work. It will be noticed, in contrast, that the writer of these plays introduces the Commons at the Court (Pt. II. iii. 2) and makes no attempt to show them in a ridicuous light. In Part III. I think the soliloquy of King Henry near the field of battle (ii. 5) is Shakespeare's. It is a purple patch, not very appropriate, and quite out of keeping in its introspective vein with the manner of the original author and particularly with his straightforward presentment of the feeble monarch. I think the speeches of the father and son which follow are also probably Shakespeare's, designed to 1 Pt. III. iv. 6. point the moral of the cruelty of civil war. They are much too didactic for the original author. Finally, I think the character of Gloucester has been developed by Shakespeare, to accord with the presentment of him in Richard III., in the speech at the end of iii. 2, and in the scene of the murder of Henry VI. in v. 6, which may be wholly Shakespeare's work. There is an interesting passage which has the appearance of a later interpolation, put in with the twofold object of paying a compliment to the Queen through the founder of her house, Henry VII., and leading up to the dénouement in Richard III., in which case it is by Shakespeare, as the style indeed suggests. I refer to the prophecy by Henry VI. of the future of the young Earl of Richmond (Part III. iv. 6). K. Hen. Come hither, England's hope. (Lays his hand on his head). If secret powers Suggest but truth to my divining thoughts, This pretty lad will prove our country's bliss. His head by nature framed to wear a crown, Likely in time to bless a regal throne. Make much of him, my lords, for this is he Must help you more than you are hurt by me. It is worth noting (though no stress can be laid on it) that the story is referred to by Bacon in his Essay on Prophecies : " 'Henry VI. of England said of Henry VII. when he was a lad, and gave him water, This is the lad that shall enjoy the crown for which we strive." In King Richard III. we come back to Shakespeare, and in the grand manner. The character of Gloucester, who becomes the King, which has been indicated in the previous play, is developed on similar lines: Glou. Now is the winter of our discontent In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; Our bruised arms hung up for monuments; Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings, Our dreadful marches to delightful measures. To fright the souls of fearful adversaries, He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber To the lascivious pleasing of a lute. But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty Unless to spy my shadow in the sun And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain, and so on. Attractive as this play is, there is nothing in it which calls for special notice from the point of view of this book. The purpose of these historical plays, as they appear in book form, including the use of another hand in portraying the events of the Wars of the Roses in the three parts of Henry VI., and the similar use, though to a less extent, of the work of another writer to represent the culmination of events in the birth of Elizabeth (Henry VIII.), was, in my opinion, to provide a fund of national instruction derived from the annals of the country, presented in such a form that it could sink into the native mind through the pleasures of the ear and eye. The theory, of which these plays are the effect (though less so than the purely imaginative drama), is to be sought, in my belief, in the remarks of Bacon under the head of Poetry in the Advancement of Learning, and more fully in the Latin De Augmentis. I quoted these passages in full in my book on Spenser,1 but I will briefly allude to them again. Bacon says that Poesy is a part of learning, which, in one of its divisions, and that the principal one, is "nothing else but Feigned History," the use of which has been "to give some shadow of satisfaction to the mind of man in those points wherein the nature of things doth deny it." He proceeds: "Therefore because the acts or events of true history have not that magnitude which satisfyeth the mind of man, poesy feigneth acts and events greater and more heroical; because true history propoundeth the successes and issues of actions not so agreeable to the merits of virtue and vice, therefore poesy feigneth them more just in retribution and more according to revealed providence; because true history represents actions and events more ordinary and less interchanged, therefore poesy endueth them with more rareness. . So as it appeareth that poetry serveth and conferreth to magnanimity, morality and to delectation. And therefore it was ever thought to have some participation of divineness, because it doth raise and erect the mind, by submitting the shews of things to the desires of the mind; whereas reason doth buckle and bow the mind to the nature of things." In the De Augmentis the subject is developed with greater precision. The writer dismisses Elegies, Odes, and the like, as belonging to arts of speech, and under the name of " Poesy" treats only of "feigned history," which he divides into Poesy Narrative, Dramatic, and Parabolical," defined as follows: "Narrative Poesy is a mere imitation of History, such as might pass for real, only that it commonly exaggerates things beyond probability. Dramatic Poesy is as History made visible; for it represents actions as if they were present, whereas History represents them as past. Parabolical Poesy is typical History, by which ideas that are objects of the intellect are represented in forms that are objects of the sense." The section concludes with some interesting and profound observations, which do not appear in the English Advancement: "Dramatic Poesy, which has the theatre for its world, would be of excellent use if well directed. For the stage is capable of no small influence both of discipline and of corruption. Now of corruptions in 1 Edmund Spenser and the Impersonations of Francis Bacon, ch. v. 2 Spedding, Works, iii. 343. this kind we have enough; but the discipline has in our times been plainly neglected. And though in modern states play-acting is esteemed but as a toy, except when it is too satirical and biting; yet among the ancients it was used as a means of educating men's minds to virtue. Nay, it has been regarded by learned men and great philsoophers as a kind of musician's bow by which men's minds may be played upon. And certainly it is most true, and one of the great secrets of nature, that the minds of men are more open to impressions and affections when many are gathered together than when they are alone."1 On this passage Spedding remarks: "It is a curious fact that these remarks on the character of the modern drama were probably written, and were certainly first published, in the same year (1623) which saw the first collection of Shakespeare's plays; of which, though they had been filling the theatre for the last thirty years, I very much doubt whether Bacon had ever heard." Spedding bases this astounding conclusion on the paucity of contemporary notices as to the publication or acting of the plays, and the general indifference of the public as to the authorship of a successful drama. I fully agree as to the indifference of the public, but Bacon, with his insatiable curiosity, was far from indifferent to such matters; and, as to press notices, he would not get his information from such sources because they were not then in existence. Is it conceivable that Bacon, of all people, who organised the dramatic shows at Gray's Inn, wrote for them himself and for other Court functions, as is proved and admitted, was an intimate friend of such men as the Earl of Southampton and other aristocratic frequenters and patrons of the play, and who held such deep and comprehensive views about the drama as this passage indicates, should have known nothing about Shakespeare's plays? It is not conceivable. Why then does he not mention them? My answer is because they were his own work, which, owing to his position in the State, it was impossible for him to acknowledge. The criticism is directed against his contemporaries, of whom he was very censorious, and the general tone of the age. The following passage which appears 1 1 Spedding's translation, Works, iv. 315-316. 2 Ibid, i. 519. |