Richard the Second down to Henry the Seventh. Indeed we may almost venture to assert, that the deviations which Shakspeare has allowed himself from actual history and chronology were made with the view of more vividly elucidating both the exterior and intrinsic connexion of the whole, as well as the modifications which its general ground receives in its several members. By these deviations,

however, nothing more is to be understood than the particular points in which he has departed from the Chronicles and the other popular histories of his day, to the exclusion of all such corrections as modern accuracy and research may have pointed out as necessary. It was only such popular sources that Shakspeare wished or was allowed by the popular character of true dramatic poetry to follow he could not have adopted the results of more learned and profound inquiries, even if historians of his day had been capable of them. His conviction of the necessity of being faithful to the popular story seems fully proved by the older titles of some of his historical dramas: "Henry the Fifth" for instance, is called in the Quarto of 1608 "The Chronicled History of Henry, &c." on which account R. Brome, in one of his comedies, "The Antipodes" 1638) speaks with some reason of Shakspeare's Chronicled Histories. Accordingly, it ceases to pass as an offence against historical truth, if Shakspeare places the death of Richard the Second, to the account of Henry the Fourth, when we find from the Chronicles that such was the current opinion of his day, although later investigation has arrived at a different conclusion. At any rate, however, it is true that the dethronement and death of Richard were the consequence of Henry's rebellion. The case is the same in some other unimportant matters, which I shall pass over unnoticed, since all such subordinate details must be left at the free disposal of the poet, and is not even to be regarded as a fault if in such points he occasionally contradicts himself,-as, for instance, when in "Henry the Sixth," he ascribes the death of Clifford to the hand of York himself, and nevertheless speaks of him afterwards as having with others fallen by the sword of common soldiers,-or again, in "Richard the Third," speaks of Clarence at one place as disposed of by the murderer's hand, and in another as drowned in the butt of Malmsey. With such little oversights it is only the hypercritical-philologists, perhaps who confound poetry and

its ideal truth with their own triflings and literary cram-that could reproach the poet.

There is, however, one startling, and yet perhaps trifling deviation from historical truth, where Shakspeare makes the young Percy to be vanquished and slain by Prince Henry. In the Chronicles he falls by an unknown hand. But this unknown hand might have been, for what we know, that of the Prince; and such a supposition was absolutely required by the poem, as giving an omen of the heroic career which was next to be depicted, and as placing the principal character in his true relation to the fundamental idea, which was at the same time more clearly illustrated by such an assumption. The inaccuracies are more considerable in "Henry the Sixth;" but in my opinion, equally well weighed and poetically justified. In the first place, Hall and Holinshed tell us in their Chronicles, that Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, and the rightful claimant to the throne, was kept many years in prison; but, according to the Chronicle of Hardyng, a contemporary, he was on the contrary well treated both by Henry the Fourth and Fifth. But even supposing Shakspeare had been acquainted with the latter work, still it would be too much to expect of him to deliberate between these conflicting statements, and to weigh their respective claims to truth. He adopted, as he certainly had full right to do, the historian whose narrative he could make most use of for his poetical purposes; and these required the production of a credible witness to the justice of the claims advanced by Richard Plantagenet (afterwards Duke of York), and also objectively to keep alive the memory of the unrighteous dethronement of Richard the Second by Henry the Fourth, and of the original disturbance of political order. For this purpose, the scenes which occur between Edmund and Richard were absolutely indispensable. Again, the death of Talbot did not, as Shakspeare makes it, take place before, but eight years after, the marriage of Henry with Margaret of Anjou; and on the other hand, the disgrace and banishment of Eleanor, Duchess of Gloster, preceded the arrival of Margaret by full three years; so that the story of her being insulted by the Queen is impossible. But anachronisms of this kind, which do not offend against the intrinsic truth of history, poets will readily pardon. Besides, in

the present case, they appear to possess a full poetic justification; for it was necessary to furnish a precise centre for the war which is exhibited in the first part of Henry the Sixth. Such the life and death of Talbot, furnished in history itself; but it was impossible, in deference to exact chronology, to spin the war out through two or more dramas. For similar reasons, and for the sake of a more perfect structure, it was impossible to disconnect what really formed the leading interests of the history; and accordingly, the punishment of Eleanor, and the arrival of Margaret, are brought close together. The imaginary scene of the Queen boxing the ears of the Duchess, serves so well to illustrate the important character of Margaret, and her immoderate love of power, as well as the haughty pride of Eleanor, while it also supplies a motive for the subsequent crime of the latter, that such poetic licenses can stand in need of no laboured advocacy.

The greatest anachronism, however, is the supposed presence of the afterwards Richard the Third at the battles of St. Albans, Wakefield, and Saxton. For, in 1455, Richard was between two and three years old, and in 1460-1, he was about nine. But we see at once what was the poet's object in thus departing from the strict facts of history: he sought to render directly apparent the close relation between the incidents of "Henry the Sixth" and the following drama, as forming the fifth act of his grand tragedy. Without some such purpose there could be no conceivable motive for introducing Richard, in particular, in "Henry the Sixth." For it is historically certain, that Henry's son, the young Edward, was murdered by Richard and his brother George (Clarence), and it is even now a matter of at least popular belief, that Henry the Sixth himself fell by the dagger of Richard. But the person of Clarence would have been enough for the poet's purpose of recording the former fact, and as to the latter, he might, without violating historical accuracy, have neglected all mention of Richard. At any rate there was no absolute necessity for making him present at the first commencement of the war. If, on the other hand, we firmly insist on the so clearly manifested design of the poet, to form a grand whole of these historical dramas, we cannot but declare it to be indispensable that Richard's character should unfold itself from the very first; and that especially his warlike

qualities and valour-qualities subsequently required by his office of executioner of divine vengeance-should be fully brought out. Thus do Shakspeare's historical offences become poetical beauties. Lastly, Shakspeare makes the death of Clarence follow quickly that of Henry, whereas it was really eight years later, and represents him as suffering unjustly and without trial, and chiefly through the arts and contrivance of Richard; but the one statement is false, and the other at least not certain. The condition of Margaret, who was imprisoned in the Tower till 1475, when she was sent back to France, is arbitrarily improved by Shakspeare, who supposed her to be in full enjoyment of liberty: we have already stated in some measure the reasons which may have led to this alteration. The person of Margaret was necessary, in order to keep alive the past in the present. Clarence, too, must fall a victim of Richard's intrigues, because, even in history, Richard appears as the sole instrument of the divine retribution. The long process of a trial would have given too great prominence to a secondary matter. In order not to delay the action which otherwise is slow and tedious enough, the whole affair is briefly despatched, and the undramatic interval between the deaths of Henry and Clarence got rid of at one stroke. If such liberties, which besides do not violate the intrinsic truth of history, are not to be allowed the poet, the composition of an historical drama is impossible.

I have thus prominently discussed the intrinsic and extrinsic connection of the eight pieces last examined, in order to expose the most uncritical procedure of Shakspeare's English critics. Although it must follow demonstratively from our previous investigations, that all these well-connected and organically fitting parts of one great whole must have proceeded from a single hand, yet in the opinion of Theobald, Malone, and others, down to Drake and Collier, the three parts of "Henry the Sixth" are not really Shakspeare's property. Of the first part it is pretended little or nothing is his, while he has but improved the second and third, or rather, he has taken for his own second and third parts two older pieces, of which the former is entered in the Stationers' Registry, 12th March, 1593-4, while no entry exists of the latter, both, however, having been anonymously printed, in 1609, under the tits, "The first part of the Contention of the two famous

houses of York and Lancaster, &c." and "The true tragedy of Richard Duke of York." (Reed's Shakspeare, xiv. 224, 236.) The chief arguments on which this opinion is supported are so weak, that I am almost ashamed to adduce them. In the first place, it is argued that the three parts are too bad to be Shakspeare's. Even Hazlitt judges of them with equal injustice. In the next place, the language, it is said, is more obsolete, the rhythm and versification inferior, and more prosaic than in his acknowledged genuine works. In the first part, the rhymes are less frequent, and not alternate, as is the case with his earliest unquestioned pieces. Malone especially sees in the first part none of Shakspeare's peculiarities; in this, and generally also in the two other parts, the versification so strikingly resembles the manner of his forerunners and immediate contemporaries, that, it is argued, this alone is sufficient to decide the question, without bringing into the scale the numerous classical allusions which occur in the first part, but in no other drama of Shakspeare's. Even the deviations from historical truth which we have already noticed, are adduced as un-Shakspearean, while particular stress is laid upon the circumstance that, in two historical points the first part contradicts. the second and third, while the third deviates as often from "Richard the Third;" although, as Malone himself proves in another place, Shakspeare has allowed himself equal inconsistencies and deviations in others of his plays. Of the alleged inferiority of the play itself no sufficient proof has been advanced, and besides we think we have already shewn the contrary. The hints which we have previously thrown out will enable every unprejudiced reader to see that the composition,-and that is unquestionably the principal point,-is both in the separate parts, and in the whole of this grand trilogy, in every way worthy, and in the manner, of Shakspeare. I have already attempted to point out in detail the profundity, consistency, and solidity with which the leading characters are conceived and worked out. In this respect, Henry the Sixth, Margaret, Talbot, Gloster, and Richard the Third, are brilliant conceptions. Suffolk too, and Somerset, Richard of York, Jack Cade with his followers, and the French Lords, are drawn with perfect truth of nature, and the latter especially in the very spirit of the preceding drama, "Henry the Fifth." It is inconceivable, therefore, how any one could have