Page images
PDF
EPUB

INTRODUCTION

THERE is only one text for Part I. of Henry VI., that of the first Folio, 1623. In this respect it stands on a different footing from Parts II. and III., and for this reason chiefly, it is best to consider it here as a play by itself and not as a portion of the trilogy: since Parts II. and III. are founded upon earlier plays whose texts we fortunately possess.

But it must be borne in mind that, structurally speaking, no such separation is legitimate. Of this we will become aware at the beginning of Part II., where the sequence of events from Part I. is clearly maintained, and purposely, if somewhat carelessly, adhered to by the same hand or hands.

Whether Part I. is, as we have it from the Folio, founded upon an older play is one of the first questions that occurs; whether in its remodelled state, supposing it to have been so founded, it is by Shakespeare, or how much of it is by Shakespeare is another question of long-standing difficulty. What other authorship is traceable and whose and where ?-all those are admittedly amongst the most troublesome that a student can be confronted with; and their difficulty increases as we consider Parts II. and III.

Before entering into these discussions, let us string together our facts, touching on the appearance of Part I.

In Henslowe's Diary (folio 7, p. 13, Bullen's reprint) the following entry occurs: "Ne (New). . . Rd. at harey the vj. the 3 of Marche 1591 ... iijll xvjs 8d." Between that date and the 22nd of April, 1592 (the following month) there are six (or seven) more entries of its appearance, and its popularity was greater than such favourites as even Jeronymo or the Jew of Malta. Its entries continue regularly down to 31st January, 1593 (the following year). Titus Andronicus is the only other

vii

18

viii

THE FIRST PART

Shakespearian drama (for a different com period; and later than "harey."

Is this Part I. of Henry VI.? There is external evidence to assist us. It is from N lesse, which was published in the same ye 88). After proving that plays "borrowed chronicles" are "a rare exercise of virtue, would it have ioyed brave Talbot (the ter to thinke that after he had lyen two hur Toomb, he should triumph againe on the his bones new embalmed with the teares spectators at least (at seuerall times) who, that represents his person, imagine they bleeding." This refers to Act IV. Scenes v. the Folio play or its forecast. Talbot is " French" in I. iv. 42.

It is hard to say how far "New" is to a legitimate claim. I do not know that it "ne" does not imply that this is the first appe in question in any shape, a natural assumption ing may also be taken that it is an old play as to rest on a new base of popularity. Th quires further proof, the former being the natu "Further proof" is here found internally.

One other point should be mentioned here the fact of the appearance of Part I. in the fi direct proof that the play was regarded at tha justly attributable to Shakespeare by the edito Condell, the best authorities on the subject: a of greater weight than Meres's negative evide tioned presently.

It is perhaps a slight evidence in favour Diary play being the same as the Folio play, th always in the Diary as Henry VI. The subs their earliest forms had distinct titles, and we Henry VI. until they reached the final stage record of the acting of those earlier forms.

Shakespeare himself laid claim, apparently three parts; in the epilogue to King Henry V. author hath pursued the story," he says:

ɔmpany) within this

is only one piece of Nashe's Pierce Peni year (Grosart's ed. d out of our English e," he says: "How error of the French undred yeare in his le stage, and haue es of ten thousand », in the Tragediar behold him fresh v., vi, vii. either in "the terror of the

[blocks in formation]

And of it left his son imperial lord.

Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this King succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake
In your fair minds let this acceptance take.

refer to the three parts, and to But some critics see nothing

These words seem intended to
their popularity on the stage.
here beyond a reference to this popularity.

That Shakespeare was at this date (1590-1591) known as a historical or heroical writer may be inferred from the lines in Spenser's Colin Clout's Come Home Again (1591), which undoubtedly refer to him-from the quibbling on the name :—

And there, though last not least is Aetion,

A gentler shepheard may no where be found:
Whose Muse, full of high thoughts invention
Doth like himselfe Heroically sound.

Shakespeare had written nothing at this date to which these words could apply so well as to Henry VI. The dispute about the date of Spenser's poem need be only referred to as a needless one, arising out of one interpolation.

This is the earliest reference to Shakespeare in Ingleby's Centurie of Prayse.

In view of the extreme interest of this quotation it may be excusable to enforce the sense of "heroically sound" from Spenser himself:

Yet gold al is not that doth golden seeme

Ne all good knights that shake well speare and shield.

(Faerie Queene, 11. viii. 14.)

And shivering speare in bloody field first shooke.

(Faerie Queene, III. i. 7.)

And from Spenser's constant follower, Peele :

Now, brave John Baliol...

And King of Scots shine with thy golden head;
(And) shake thy spears, in honour of his name
Under whose royalty thou wear'st the same.

(Edward I. 386, a, Routledge.)

Thus long, I say, sat Sydney and beheld

The shivers fly of many a shaken spear. (Polyhymnia, 1590.)

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Five hundred thousand footmen threaten
Shaking their swords, their spears, their

There is one evidence against Shakes from an external source, that must be menti positive decisiveness. It is that of Fra Treasury, 1598) whose enumeration of the does not include Henry VI. "For tragedy Richard the 3, Henry the 4, King Iohn, Tit his Romeo and Juliet." Meres may have re VI. as joint compositions; he may have forg moment; but what is most probable is that stress on Shakespeare's most deserving w passed these plays by. It was an unfortu future critics.

Meres affects a "pedantic parallelism Brinsley Nicholson called it) in order to bring position of English against classical and for somewhat detracts from his worth as an accur

Greene's well known virulent attack on Sha properly belongs to Part III.; or to the whole sideration must be deferred for the present that it betrays Greene's extreme irritation, appa speare's having made use of work of his and o fashion with such success for the stage. We that Part I. is a revision except internal ev shall show presently that there is in it m Greene's known work.

We are left now to the consideration of the the foregoing evidence that it is in some Shakespeare's. All critics, all readers, will pr have agreed that it is one of the least poetical the dullest of all the plays in the Folio. It is r passages of merit-its verse is unmusical, its usually poorly developed-and were it not fo interest of the subject-matter, to any English be unreadable. But even there it is blamewo history it contains is jumbled and falsified in unnecessary ways.

art I. IV. i. p. 25, b:

ening shot, eir iron bills.

kespeare's authorship ntioned. It is of no Francis Meres (Wit e plays at that date dy his Richard the 2, itus Andronicus and regarded Henry the rgotten them for the at as he was laying work, he purposely Eunate omission for

of numbers" (2: ng about his juxtaForeign names that urate critic. hakespeare in 1592, le group. Its con with the remark parently at Shakeof others, in some have no evidence vidence-but we uch that recalls

e play itself, with degree or other obably agree of 1 and also one of edeemed by few s situations are or the essential reader it would rthy, since the perplexing and

Nevertheless there is an easy story-telling method about the writing that is freer from bombast and pedantry than the usual efforts of the date-it is devoid of brutality and horrors for the most part, such as disfigure that revolting play Titus Andronicus, which is regarded, or was regarded, as Shakespeare's first play and the only one preceding that under notice. Titus bears ample evidence, however, of authorship other than Shakespeare's, and is now given by some competent critics a later date, and even removed entirely from his name.

We are at liberty to place Part I., in so far as it is Shakespeare's, as his earliest work with a date of about 1589-90. There is thus a certain space of time in hand for the development of power and experience before the production of Parts II. and III. (1591-2) which are both, especially the last-named, of a higher class in all respects.

Are we to believe then, or try to believe, that the play before us is of that date? Or that our version is built (by Shakespeare) on a lost and earlier play? I incline to the former opinion. I believe that a close examination of the language itself makes that date imperative in so many cases that we are bound to grant it; and the converse is even more the case; that any later date, even for parts of it in any considerable extent, would be revealed by the same study of the language were it existent. There are no such staggering difficulties with regard to this date, in the text, as confront one, for example, when accepting the 1590-1591 date for Love's Labour's Lost. No painful necessity for viewing whole speeches, and several topical allusions, as belonging to a period two to three years later-painful only to the student chronologically, for no doubt they would shine forth in bright relief from the surrounding level of hardly mitigated dulness.

I see no reason, therefore, to look for an imaginary earlier completed play. I am aware that I am in conflict here with the views of some critics of importance, but other views than my own will be dealt with later.

There is one confusing result arrived at after a prolonged examination. Although we find Greene's methods of expression in so many places, the general style is not that of Greene, it is much toned down and tamer. Still less does the poetry recall Marlowe; it is devoid of his special grandeur, or inflation,

« PreviousContinue »