Page images
PDF
EPUB

celebrated in the part of the Clown, 2) in Henry V. and
though this character does not exist in our play, we find
it in the other, which, for the reasons already enumerated, ||
I suppose to have been prior to this.
This anonymous
play of Henry V. is neither divided into Acts or Scenes,
is uncommonly short, and has all the appearance of hav-
ing been imperfectly taken down during the representa-
tion. As much of it appears to have been omitted, we
may suppose that the author did not think it convenient
for his reputation to publish a more ample copy. — 'There
is, indeed, a play, called Sir John Oldcastle, published
in 1600, with the name of William Shakspeare prefixed
to it. The prologue being very short, I shall quote it,
as it serves to prove that a former piece, in which the
character of Oldcastle was introduced, had given great
offence:

"The doubtful title (gentlemen) prefixt
"Upon the argument we have in hand,
"May breed suspense, and wrongfully disturbe
"The peaceful quiet of your settled thoughts.
"To stop which scruple, let this breefe suffice:
"It is no pamper'd glutton we present,
"Nor aged councellour to youthful sinne;
"But one, whose vertue shone above the rest,
"A valiant martyr, and a vertuous pecre;
"In whose true faith and loyalty exprest
"Unto his soveraigne, and his countries weale,
"We strive to pay that tribute of our love
"Your favours merit: let faire truth be grac'd,
"Since forg'd invention former time defäc'd."'
STEEVENS.

The piece to which Nash alludes is the old anonymous play of King Henry V., which had been exhibited before the year 1589, Tarlton, the comedian, who performed in it both the parts of the chief justice and the clown, having died in that year. It was entered on the Stationers' books in 1594, and, I believe, printed in that year, though I have not met with a copy of that date. An edition of it, printed in 1598, was in the valuable collection of Dr. Wright. The play before us appears to have been written in the middle of the year 1599. The old King Henry V. may be found among Six old Plays on which Shakspeare founded, &c. printed by S. Leacroft, 1778. MALONE. This play has many scenes of high dignity, and many of easy merriment. The character of the king is well supported, except in his courtship, where he has neither the vivacity of Hal, nor the grandeur of Henry. The humour of Pistol is very happily continued: his character has perhaps been the model of all the bullies that have yet appeared on the English stage. The lines given to the Chorus have many admirers; but the truth is, that in them a little may be praised, and much must be forgiven; nor can it be easily discovered why the intelligence given by the Chorus is more necessary in this play than in many others where it is omitted. The great defect of this play is the emptiness and narrowness of the last act, which a very little diligence might have easily avoided. JOHNSON. —

XXI. KING HENRY VI.
PART I.

THE historical transactions 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 disposition of his facts; but shuffled them, backwards and forwards, out of time. For instance, the lord Talbot is killed at the

2) Mr. Oldys, in a manuscript note in his copy of Langbaine, says, that Tarleton appeared in the character of the Judge who receives the box on the ear. This judge is likewise a character in the old play. I may add, on the authority of the books at Stationers' Hall, that Tarleton published what he called his Farewell, a ballad, in Sept. 1588. In Oct. 1589, was entered, "Tarleton's Repentance, and his Farewell to his Friends in his Sickness a little before his Death;" in 1590, "Tarleton's Newes out of Purgatorie;" and in the same year, "A pleasaunt Ditty Dialogue-wise between Tarleton's Ghost and Robyn Goodfellowe" Steevens.

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 VI. opens with the marriage of the king, which
was solemnized eight years before Talbot's death, in the
year 1445. Again, in the Second Part, dame Eleanor
Cobham is introduced to insult Queen Margaret! though
her penance and banishment for sorcery happened three
years before that princess came over to England. I could
point out many other transgressions against history, as
far as the order of time is concerned. Indeed, though
there are several master-strokes in these three plays, which
incontestibly betray the workmanship of Shakspeare; yet
I am almost doubtful, whether they were entirely of his
writing. Aud unless they were wrote by him very early,
I should rather imagine them to have been brought to
him as a director of the stage; and so have received
some finishing beauties at his hand. An accurate observer
will easily see, the diction of them is more obsolete, and
the numbers more mean and prosaical, than in the ge-
nerality of his genuine compositions. THEOBALD. Like
many others, I was long struck with the many evident
Shakspearianisms in these plays, which appeared to me to
carry such decisive weight, that I could scarcely bring
myself to examine with attention any of the arguments
that have been urged against his being the author of
them. But I should have adverted to a very striking
circumstance which distinguishes this first part from the
other parts of King Henry VI. This circumstance is,

that none of these Shakspearian passages are to be found
here, though several are scattered through the two other
parts. I am therefore decisively of opinion that this play
was not written by Shakspeare. 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 so different from that of Shakspeare's
undoubted plays, and of the greater part of the two suc-
ceeding pieces, as altered by him, and so exactly cor-
responds with that of the tragedies written by others be-
fore and about the time of his first commencing author,
that this alone might decide the question, without taking
into the account the numerous classical allusions which
are found in this first part. With respect to the se-
cond and third parts of King Henry VI. or, as they were
originally called, The Contention of the Two famous Houses
of Yorke and Lancaster, they stand, in my apprehension,
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
some 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 same titles. 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. The
disposition of facts in these three plays, not always cor-
responding with the dates, which Mr. Theobald mentions,
and the want of uniformity and consistency in the series
of events exhibited, may perhaps be in some measure
accounted for by the hypothesis now stated. As to our
author's having accepted these pieces as a director of the
stage, he had, fear, no pretension to such a situation
at so early a period. MALONE. The chief argument
on which the first paragraph of the foregoing note de-
pends, is not, in my opinion, conclusive. This historical
play might have been one of our author's earliest dra-
matic efforts; and almost every young poet begins his
career by imitation. Shakspeare, therefore, till he felt
his own strength, perhaps servilely conformed to the style
and manner of his predecessors. STEEVENS. Of this

play there is no copy earlier than that of the folio in 1623, though the two succeeding parts are extant in two editions in quarto. That the second and third parts were published without the first, may be admitted as no weak proof that the copies were surreptitiously obtained, and that the printers of that time gave the public those plays, not such as the author designed, but such as they could get them. That this play was written before the two others is indubitably collected from the series of events; that it was written and played before Henry the Fifth is apparent, because in the epilogue there is mention made of this play, and not of the other parts:

"Henry the sixth in swaddling bands crown'd king, "Whose state so many had the managing, "That they lost France, and made his England bleed: "Which oft our stage hath shown."

France is lost in this play. The two following contain, as the old title imports, the contention of the houses of York and Lancaster. The second and third parts of Henry VI. were printed in 1600. When Henry V. was written, we know not, but it was printed likewise in 1600, and therefore before the publication of the first and second parts. The first part of Henry VI. had been often shown on the stage, and would certainly have appeared in its place, had the author been the publisher. JoHNSON. — That the second and third parts (as they are now called) were printed without the first, is a proof, in my appre hension, that they were not written by the author of the first; and the title of The Contention of the Houses of York and Lancaster, being affixed to the two pieces which were printed in quarto, 1600, is a proof that they were a distinct work, commencing where the other ended, but not written at the same time; and that this play was never known by the name of The First Part of King Henry VI. till Heminge and Condell gave it this title in their volume, to distinguish it from the two subsequent plays; which being altered by Shakspeare, assumed the new titles of The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. that they might not be confounded with the original pieces on which they were formed. This first part was, I conceive, originally called The Historical Play of King Henry VI. MALONE. =

XXII. KING HENRY VI.

PART II.

THIS and The Third Part of King Henry VI. contain that troublesome period of this prince's reign which took in the whole contention betwixt the houses of York and Lancaster: and under that title were these two plays first acted and published. The present scene opens with King Henry's marriage, which was in the twenty-third year of his reign [A. D. 1445]; and closes with the first battle fought at St. Alban's and won by the York faction, in the thirty-third year of his reign [A. D. 1455]: so that it comprizes the history and transactions of ten years. THEOBALD. This play was altered by Crowne, and acted in the year 1681. STEEVENS. — The Contention of the Two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster in two parts, was published in quarto, in 1600; and the first part was entered on the Stationers' books, (as Mr. Steevens has observed,) March 12, 1593-94. On these two plays, which I believe to have been written by some preceding author, before the year 1590, Shakspeare formed, as I conceive, this and the following drama; altering, retrenching, or amplifying, as he thought proper. In the printing of these plays, all the lines printed in the usual manner, are found in the original quarto plays (or at least with such minute variations as are not worth noticing); and those, I conceive, Shakspeare adopted as he found them. The lines to which inverted commas are prefixed, were, if my

These

hypothesis be well founded, retouched, and greatly improved by him; and those with asterisks were his own original production; the embroidery with which he ornamented the coarse stuff that had been awkwardly made up for the stage by some of his contemporaries. The speeches which he new-modelled, he improved, sometimes by amplification, and sometimes by retrenchment. two pieces, I imagine, were produced in their present form in 1591. Dr. Johnson observes very justly, that these two parts were not written without a dependance on the first. Undoubtedly not; the old play of King Henry VI. (or, as it is now called, The First Part,) certainly had been exhibited before these were written in any form. But it does not follow from this concession, either that The Contention of the Two Houses, &c. in two parts, was written by the author of the former play, or that Shakspeare was the author of these two pieces as they originally appeared. MALONE. In Mr. Malone's new edition, we find some alterations and additions to his asterisks and inverted commas. The whole is conjectural, and shows how little is known with certainty respecting Shakspeare's works. CHALMERS. =

XXIII. KING HENRY VI.

PART III.

THE action of this play (which was at first printed under this title, The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, and the good King Henry the Sixth; or, The Second Part of the Contention of York and Lancaster,) opens just after the first battle of Saint Alban's, [May 23, 1455,] wherein the York faction carried the day; and closes with the murder of King Henry VI. and the birth of Prince Edward, afterwards King Edward V. [November 4, 1471.] So that this history takes in the space of full sixteen years. THEOBALD.I have never seen the quarto copy of the Second part of THE WHOLE CONTENTION, &c. printed by Valentine Simmes for Thomas Millington, 1600; but the copy printed by W. W. for Thomas Millington, 1600, is now before me; and it is not precisely the same with that described by Mr. Pope and Mr. Theobald, nor does the undated edition (printed, in fact, in 1619,) correspond with their description. The title of the piece printed in 1600, by W. W., is as follows: The True Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, and the Death of good King Henrie the Sixt: With the Whole Contention between the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke: as it was

sundry Times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his Servants. Printed at London by W. W. for Thomas Millington, and are to be sold at his Shoppe under St. Peter's Church in Cornewall, 3) 1600. On this piece Shakspeare, as I conceive, in 1591, formed the drama before us. MALONE. The present historical drama was altered by Crowne, and brought on the stage in the year 1680, under the title of The Miseries of Civil War. Surely the works of Shakspeare could have been little read at that period; for Crowne, in his Prologue, declares the play to be entirely his own composition :

"For by his feeble skill 'tis built alone, "The divine Shakspeare did not lay one stone." Whereas the very first scene is that of Jack Cade copied almost verbatim from The Second Part of King Henry VI., and several others from this third part, with as little variation. STEEVENS. The three parts of King Henry VI. are suspected, by Mr. Theobald, of being supposititious, and are declared, by Dr. Warburton, to be certainly not Shakspeare's. Mr. Theobald's suspicion arises from some obsolete words; but the phraseology is like the rest of

8) e. Cornhill.

1477-78.

our author's style, and single words, of which however I Oct. 20, 1597, under the title of The Tragedie of King do not observe more than two, can conclude little. Richard the Third, with the Death of the Duke of ClaDr. Warburton gives no reason, but I suppose him to rence. Before this, viz. Aug. 15, 1586, was entered, A judge upon deeper principles and more comprehensive tragical Report of King Richard the Third, a Ballad. views, and to draw his opinion from the general effect It may be necessary to remark that the words, song, and spirit of the composition, which he thinks inferior ballad, enterlude and play, were often synonymously used. to the other historical plays. From mere inferiority, STEEVENS. This play was written, I imagine, in the nothing can be inferred; in the production of wit there year 1593. The Legend of King Richard III. by Francis will be inequality. Sometimes judgment will err, and Seagars, was printed in the first edition of The Mirrour sometimes the matter itself will defeat the artist. Of for Magistrates, 1559, and in that of 1575, and 1587, but every author's works, one will be the best, and one will Shakspeare does not appear to be indebted to it. In a be the worst. The colours are not equally pleasing, nor subsequent edition of that book printed in 1610, the old the attitudes equally graceful, in all the pictures of Titian legend was omitted, and a new one inserted, by Richard or Reynolds. Dissimilitude of style and heterogeneous- Niccols, who has very freely copied the play before us. ness of sentiment, may sufficiently show that a work does In 1597, when this tragedy was published, Niccols, as Mr. not really belong to the reputed author. But in these Warton has observed, was but thirteen years old. Hist. plays no such marks of spuriousness are found. The of Poetry, Vol. III. p. 267. The real length of time in diction, the versification, and the figures, are Shakspeare's. this piece is fourteen years; not eight years, (as Mr. These plays, considered, without regard to characters and Theobald supposed:) for the second scene commences with incidents, merely as narratives in verse, are more hap- the funeral of king Henry VI. who, according to the repily conceived, and more accurately finished than those || ceived account, was murdered on the 21st of May, 1471. of K. John, Richard II., or the tragic scenes of King The imprisonment of Clarence, which is represented preHenry IV. and V. If we take these plays from Shak-viously in the first scene, did not in fact take place till speare, to whom shall they be given? What author of It has been since observed to me by Mr. Elthat age had the same casiness of expression and fluency derton, (who is of opinion that Richard was charged with of numbers? - Having considered the evidence given by this murder by the Lancastrian historians without any the plays themselves, and found it in their favour, let us foundation,) that "it appears on the face of the public now inquire what corroboration can be gained from other accounts allowed in the exchequer for the maintenance testimony. They are ascribed to Shakspeare by the first of king Henry and his numerous attendants in the Tower, editors, whose attestation may be received in questions that he lived to the 12th of June, which was twenty-two of fact, however unskilfully they superintended their edi- days after the time assigned for his pretended assassition. They seem to be declared genuine by the voice of nation; was exposed to the public view in St. Paul's for Shakspeare himself, who refers to the second play in his some days, and interred at Chertsey with much solemnity, epilogue to King Henry V., and apparently connects the and at no inconsiderable expence." MALONE. This is first act of King Richard III. with the last of The Third one of the most celebrated of our author's performances; Part of King Henry VI. If it be objected that the plays yet I know not whether it has not happened to him as were popular, and that therefore he alluded to them as to others, to be praised most, when praise is not most well known; it may be answered, with equal probability, deserved. That this play has scenes noble in themselves, that the natural passions of a poet would have disposed and very well contrived to strike in the exhibition, cannot him to separate his own works from those of an inferior be denied. But some parts are trifling, others shocking, hand. And, indeed, if an author's own testimony is to and some improbable. JOHNSON.I agree entirely with be overthrown by speculative criticism, no man can be any Dr. Johnson in thinking that this play from its first exlonger secure of literary reputation. Of these three hibition to the present hour has been estimated greatly plays I think the second the best. The truth is, that beyond its merit. From the many allusions to it in books they have not sufficient variety of action, for the incidents of that age, and the great number of editions it passed are too often of the same kind; yet many of the cha- through, I suspect it was more often represented and racters are well discriminated. King Henry, and his queen, more admired than any of our author's tragedies. Its poking Edward, the duke of Gloster, and the carl of War- pularity perhaps in some measure arose from the detestwick, are very strongly and distinctly painted. The ation in which Richard's character was justly held, which old copies of the two latter parts of King Henry VI. and must have operated more strongly on those whose grandof King Henry I. are so apparently imperfect and mu- fathers might have lived near his time; and from its being tilated, that there is no reason for supposing them the patronized by the queen on the throne, who probably first draughts of Shakspeare. I am inclined to believe was not a little pleased at seeing king Henry VII. placed them copies taken by some auditor, who wrote down, in the only favourable light, in which he could have been during the representation, what the time would permit, exhibited on the scene. MALONE. I most cordially join then perhaps filled up some of his omissions at a second with Dr. Johnson and Mr. Malone in their opinions; and or third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed yet perhaps they have overlooked one cause of the sucsomething like a play, sent it to the printer, JoHNSON. = cess of this tragedy. The part of Richard is, perhaps, beyond all others variegated, and consequently favourable to a judicious performer. It comprehends, indeed, a trait of almost every species of character on the stage. The hero, the lover, the statesman, the buffoon, the hypocrite, the hardened and repenting sinner, &c. are to be found within its compass. No wonder, therefore, that the discriminating powers of a Burbage, a Garrick, and a Henderson, should at different periods have given it a popularity beyond other dramas of the same author. Yet the favour with which this tragedy is now received, must also in some measure be imputed to Mr. Cibber's reformation of it, which, generally considered, is judicious: for what modern audience would patiently listen to the narrative of Clarence's dream, his subsequent expostulation with the murderers, the prattle of his children, the 20

[ocr errors]

XXIV. KING RICHARD III.

THIS tragedy, though it is called the life and death of this prince, comprizes, at most, but the last eight years of his time; for it opens with George duke of Clarence being clapped up in the Tower, which happened in the beginning of the year 1477; and closes with the death of Richard at Bosworth field, which battle was fought on the 22d of August, in the year 1485. THEOBALD. = It appears that several dramas on the present subject had been written before Shakspeare attempted it. This play was first entered at Stationers' Hall by Andrew Wise,

liloquy of the scrivener, the tedious dialogue of the citizens, the ravings of Margaret, the gross terms thrown

XXVI. TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

out by the duchess of York on Richard, the repeated pro- THE story was originally written by Lollius, an old

gress to execution, the superfluous train of spectres, and other undramatic incumbrances, which must have prevented the more valuable parts of the play from rising into their present effect and consequence? — The expulsion of languor, therefore, must atone for such remaining want of probability as is inseparable from an historical drama into which the events of fourteen years are irregularly compressed. STEEVENS.

XXV. KING HENRY VIII.

[ocr errors]

Lombard author, and since by Chaucer. POPE. Mr. || Pope (after Dryden) informs us, that the story of Troilus and Cressida was originally the work of one Lollius, a Lombard; (of whom Gascoigne speaks in Dan Bartholmewe his first Triumph: "Since Lollius and Chaucer both, make doubt upon that glose,") but Dryden goes yet further. He declares it to have been written in Latin verse, and that Chaucer translated it. Lollius was a historiographer of Urbino in Italy. Shakspeare received the greatest part of his materials for the structure of this play from the Troye Boke of Lydgate. Lydgate was not much more than a translator of Guido of Columpna, who was of

We are unacquainted with any dramatic piece on the subject of Henry VIII. that preceded this of Shakspeare; and yet on the books of the Stationers' Company appears the following entry: "Nathaniel Butter] (who was one of our author's printers) Feb. 12, 1604. That he get good allowance for the enterlude of King Henry VIII. before he begin to print it; and with the warden's hand to yt, he is to have the same for his copy." Dr. Farmer, in a note on the epilogue to this play, observes, from Stowe, that Robert Greene had written somewhat on the same story. STEEVENS. = This historical drama comprizes a period of twelve years, commencing in the twelfth year of king Henry's reign (1521,) and ending with the christening of Elizabeth in 1533. Shakspeare has deviated from history in placing the death of queen Katharine before the birth of Elizabeth, for, in fact, Katharine did not die till 1536. King Henry VIII. was written, I believe, in 1603. Dr. Farmer, in a note on the epilogue, observes from Stowe, that "Robert Greene had written something on this story;" but this, I apprehend, was not a play, but some historical account of Henry's reign, written not by Robert Greene, the dramatic poet, but by some other person. In the list of "authors out of whom Stowe's Annals were compiled," prefixed to the last edition printed in his life-time, quarto, 1605, Robert Greene is enumerated with Robert de Brun, Robert Fabian, &c. and he is often quoted as an authority for facts in the margin of the history of that reign. MALONE. The play of Henry the Eighth is one of those which still keeps possession of the stage by the splendour of its pageantry. The coronation, about forty years ago, drew the people together in maltitudes for a great part of the winter. *) Yet pomp is not the only merit of this play. The meek sorrows and virtuous distress of Katharine have furnished some scenes, which may be justly numbered among the greatest efforts of tragedy. But the genius of Shakspeare comes in and goes out with Katharine. Every other part may be easily conceived and easily written. JOHNSON.= The historical dramas are now concluded, of which the two parts of Henry the Fourth, and Henry the Fifth, are among the happiest of our author's compositions; and King John, Richard the Third, and Henry the Eighth, deservedly stand in the second class. Those whose curiosity would refer the historical scenes to their original, may consult Holinshed, and sometimes Hall: from Holinshed Shakspeare has often inserted whole speeches, with no more alteration than was necessary to the numbers of his verse. To transcribe them into the margin was unnecessary, because the original is easily examined, and they are seldom less perspicuous in the poet than in the historian. To play histories, or to exhibit a succession of events by action or dialogue, was a common entertainment among our rude ancestors upon great festivities. The parish clerks once performed at Clerkenwell a play which lasted three days, containing The History of the World. JOHNSON, =

4) Chetwood says that, during one season, it was exhibited seventy five times.

[ocr errors]

Messina in Sicily, and wrote his History of Troy in Latin, after Dictys Cretensis, and Dares Phrygius, in 1287. On these, as Mr. Warton observes, he engrafted many new romantic inventions, which the taste of his age dictated, and which the connection between Grecian and Gothic fiction easily admitted; at the same time comprehending in his plan the Theban and Argonautic stories from Ovid, Statius, and Valerius Flaccus. Guido's work was published at Cologne in 1477, again 1480: at Strasburgh, 1486, and ibidem, 1489. It appears to have been translated by Raoul le Feure, at Cologne, into French, from whom Caxton rendered it into English in 1471, under the title of his Recuyel, &c.; so that there must have been yet some earlier edition of Guido's performance than I have hitherto scen or heard of, unless his first translator had recourse to a manuscript. Guido of Columpna is referred to as an authority by our own chronicler Grafton. Chaucer had made the loves of Troilus and Cressida famous, which very probably might have been Shakspeare's inducement to try their fortune on the stage. — Lydgate's Troye Boke was printed by Pyuson, in 1513. In the books of the Stationers' Company, anno 1581, is entered "A proper ballad, dialogue-wise, between Troilus and Cressida." Again, Feb. 7, 1602: "The booke of Troilus and Cressida, as it is acted by my Lo. Chamberlain's men." The first of these entries is in the name of Edward White, the second in that of Mr. Roberts. Again, Jan. 28, 1608, entered by Rich. Bonian and Hen. Whalley, "A booke called the history of Troilus and Cressida.” STEEVENS. The entry in 1608-9 was made by the booksellers for whom this play was published in 1609. It was written, I conceive, in 1602. MALONE. Before this play of Troilus and Cressida, printed in 1609, is a bookseller's preface, showing that first impression to have been before the play had been acted, and that it was published without Shakspeare's knowledge, from a copy that had fallen into the bookseller's hands. Mr. Dryden thinks this one of the first of our author's plays: but, on the contrary, it may be judged, from the fore-mentioned preface, that it was one of his last; and the great number of observations, both moral and politic, with which this piece is crowded more than any other of his, seems to confirm my opinion. PoPB. We may learn, from this preface, that the original proprietors of Shakspeare's plays thought it their interest to keep them unprinted. The author of it adds, at the conclusion, these words: "Thank fortune for the 'scape it hath made among you, since, by the grand possessors' wills, I believe you should rather have prayed for them, than have been prayed," &c. By the grand possessors, I suppose, were meant Heming and Condell. It appears that the rival play-houses at that time made frequent depredations on one another's copies. In the Induction to The Malcontent, written by Webster, and augmented by Marston, 1606, is the following passage: "I wonder you would play it, another company having interest in it."-"Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo in decimo scxto with them? They taught

[ocr errors]

us a name for our play; we call it One for another." Again, T. Heywood, in his preface to The English Tra veller, 1633: "Others of them are still retained in the hands of some actors, who think it against their peculiar profit to have them come in print." STEEVENS. Notwithstanding what has been said by a late editor, [Mr. Capell,] I have a copy of the first folio, including Troilus and Cressida. Indeed, it was at first either unknown or forgotten. It does not, however, appear in the list of the plays, and is thrust in between the histories and the tragedies, without any enumeration of the pages, except, I think, on one leaf only. It differs entirely from the copy in the second folio. FARMER. I have consulted at least twenty copies of the first folio, and Troilus and Cressida is not wanting in any of them. STEEVENS. This play is more correctly written than most of Shakspeare's compositions, but it is not one of those in which either the extent of his views or elevation of his fancy is fully displayed. As the story abounded with || materials, he has exerted little invention; but he has diversified his characters with great variety, and preserved them with great exactness. His vicious characters disgust but cannot corrupt, for both Cressida and Pandarus are detested and contemned. The comic characters seem to have been the favourites of the writer: they are of the superficial kind, and exhibit more of manners than nature; but they are copiously filled and powerfully impressed. Shakspeare has in his story followed, for the greater part, the old book of Caxton, which was then very popular; but the character of Thersites, of which it makes no mention, is a proof that this play was written after Chapman had published his version of Homer. JOHNSON.=

largurus daughter." "Katte, her prattling nurse.” “SCENE, Athens." STEEVENS. = Shakspeare undoubtedly formed this play on the passage in Plutarch's Life of Antony relative to Timon, and not on the twenty-eighth novel of the first volume of Painter's Palace of Pleasure; because he is there merely described as "a man-hater, of a strange and beastly nature," without any cause assigned; whereas Plutarch furnished our author with the following hint to work upon; "Antonius forsook the citie, and companie of his friendes, saying, that he would lead Timon's life, because he had the like wrong offered him, that was offered unto Timon; and for the unthankfulness of those he had done good unto, and whom he tooke to be his friendes, he was angry with all men, and would To the manuscript play mentioned by Mr. Steevens, our author, I have no doubt, was also indebted for some other circumstances. Here he found the faithful steward, the banquet-scene, and the story of Timon's being possessed of great sums of gold which he had dug up in the woods: a circumstance which he could not have had from Lucian, there being then no translation of the dialogue that relates to this subject. Spon says, there is a building near Athens, yet remaining, called Timon's Tower. Timon of Athens was written,

trust no man.”

I imagine, in the year 1610. MALONE. The play of Timon is a domestic tragedy, and therefore strongly fastens on the attention of the reader. In the plan there is not much art, but the incidents are natural, and the characters various and exact. The catastrophe affords a very powerful warning against that ostentatious liberality, which scatters bounty, but confers no benefits, and buys flattery, but not friendship. JOHNSON. =

[blocks in formation]

"Come, I'll be as sociable as Timon of Athens." But the allusion is so slight, that it might as well have been borrowed from Plutarch or the novel. Mr. Strutt the late engraver, to whom our antiquaries are under no inconsiderable obligations, had in his possession a MS. play on this subject. It appears to have been written, or transcribed, about the year 1600. There is a scene in it resembling Shakspeare's banquet given by Timon to his flatterers. Instead of warm water he sets before them stones painted like artichokes, and afterwards beats them out of the room. He then retires to the woods, attended by his faithful steward, who (like Kent in King Lear) has disguised himself to continue his services to his master. Timon in the last act is followed by his fickle mistress, &c. after he was reported to have discovered a hidden treasure by digging. The piece itself (though it appears to be the work of an academic) is a wretched one. The personæ dramatis are as follows: "The actors' names. "Timon." "Laches, his faithful servant." "Eutrapelus, a dissolute young man." "Gelasimus, a cittie heyre." "Pseudocheus, a lying travailer." "Demeas, an orator." "Philargurus, a covetous churlish ould man." "Hermogenes, a fidler." "Abyssus, a usurer." "Lollio, a cuntrey clowne, Philargurus sonne." "Stilpo, Speusippus, Two lying philosophers." "Grunnio, a lean servant of Philargurus." "Obba, Tymon's butler." "Pædio, Gelasimus page." "Two serjeants.” “A sailor." "Callimela, Phi

[ocr errors]

XXVIII. CORIOLANUS.

THIS play I conjecture to have been written in the year 1610. It comprehends a period of about four years, commencing with the secession to the Mons Sacer in the year of Rome 262, and ending with the death of Coriolanus, A. U. C. 266. MALONE. The whole history is exactly followed, and many of the principal speeches exactly copied, from the Life of Coriolanus in Plutarch. РОРЕ. The tragedy of Coriolanus is one of the most amusing of our author's performances. The old man's merriment in Menenius; the lofty lady's dignity in Volumnia; the bridal modesty in Virgilia; the patrician and military haughtiness in Coriolanus; the plebeian malignity and tribunitian insolence in Brutus and Sicinius, make a very pleasing and interesting variety: and the various revolutions of the hero's fortune fill the mind with anxious curiosity. There is, perhaps, too much bustle in the first Act, and too little in the last. JOHNSON.

XXIX. JULIUS CÆSAR.

Ir appears from Peck's Collection of divers curious historical Pieces, &c. (appended to his Memoirs, &c. of Oliver Cromwell,) p. 14, that a Latin play on this subject had been written: "Epilogus Cæsaris interfecti, quomodo in scenam prodiit ea res, acta, in Ecclesia Christi, Oxon. Qui Epilogus a Magistro Ricardo Eedes, et scriptus et in proscenio ibidem dictus fuit, A. D. 1582." Meres, whose Wit's Commonwealth was published in 1598, enumerates Dr. Eedes among the best tragic writers of that time. STEEVENS. From some words spoken by Polonius in Hamlet, I think it probable that there was an English play on this subject, before Shakspeare commenced a writer for the stage. Stephen Gosson, in his School of Abuse, 1579, mentions a play entitled The History of Cœ

« PreviousContinue »