scenes and situations, also includes introductory matter for which Shakspere supplied the dramatic development. On the whole, then, it seems improbable that Shakspere would have written parts of the five main stories and left them all unfinished. On the contrary, it seems probable that he had the general course of each of the main actions well in mind when he wrote. The most natural conjecture, it seems to me, is that a historical and spectacular play was planned (perhaps by Shakspere) dealing with these five main events. The play was undertaken in collaboration between Shakspere and Fletcher; each, after the manner of Elizabethan collaborators, undertaking certain scenes. Shakspere may have intended to do more than he did do, he may have been prevented by some cause from carrying on a situation which he had introduced and may, therefore, have turned that work over to Fletcher; but I see no reason to suppose that Shakspere first wrote his part as we have it and stopped there. It seems to me unlikely that any dramatist should begin a play in that way beginning three different actions, taking up two in the middle, and finishing none. In this instance I am at odds with the weight of authority; but on the other hand there is, as we have seen, a priori a likelihood of direct collaboration. To my mind the distinct separation between Fletcherian and Shaksperean parts, the probability that there is little or no revision of Shakspere by Fletcher, and the content of each man's work, all argue against the theory that Fletcher finished a play which Shakspere began and support the a priori probability of collaboration pure and simple." Here we are in the region of controversy; and, while the point may never be absolutely proved, it seems to the present writer that Thorndike's reasoning is sound and that his inferences fall within the realm of what is easily probable. Stage History. The play of Henry the Eighth has had a long and an interesting stage history. It has been performed many times, and its leading parts have been assumed by many great actors. It has been a favorite with the public, on account of its brilliant pageants and its magnificent spectacular effects. In 1664, it was played at Lincoln's Inn Fields. Betterton took the part of the King, and Mrs. Betterton took the part of Queen Katharine. Pepys saw this presentation, and records in his Diary, January 1, 1663-1664: "Went to the Duke's house, the first play I have been at these six months, according to my last vowe, and here saw the so much cried-up play of 'Henry the Eighth '; which, though I went with resolution to like it, is so simple a thing made up of a great many patches, that, besides the shows and processions in it, there is nothing in the world good or well done." It was played again at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1700, at the Haymarket in 1707, and at Drury Lane in 1722. In 1727, the year of the coronation of George II, the play was produced with fine effect at Drury Lane, with Booth as the King. A Coronation scene was added which is said to have cost the managers £1000. The play was produced at Drury Lane in 1788, where it had not been acted in twenty years. Mrs. Siddons took the part of the Queen. In 1806 the play was presented at Covent Garden with a great deal of care as to dramatic proprieties. Kemble took the part of Wolsey, and Mrs. Siddons again that of the Queen. Katharine was among the rôles of Miss Fanny Kemble. In 1855 Charles Kean revived the play, and assumed the rôle of Wolsey. In recent years there have been notable revivals by Sir Henry Irving in 1892, and by Sir Herbert Tree in 1910. Interpretation. The significance of the play is so obvious that there is little opportunity for divergence of opinion among the critics. Dr. Johnson said: "The meek sorrows and virtuous distress of Catharine have furnished some scenes which may be justly numbered among the greatest efforts of tragedy. But the genius of Shakespeare comes in and goes out with Catharine. Every other part may be easily conceived, and easily written." Hazlitt dissents from this view, and cites the scene where Buckingham is led to execution; as well as the character of Wolsey, his pride and fall, as fine examples of Shakespeare's power. Spedding says "the effect of this play as a whole is weak and disappointing." Gervinus says that "the essential idea of the drama might be referred to the glorification of the house of Tudor." It is not difficult to read a significance into the play; but, obviously it is a brilliant pageant, historical in its background, dominated by three great figures, Henry, Wolsey, and Queen Katharine, one of the most pathetic figures in history, whom Shakespeare has depicted with consummate skill. |