INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE SECOND PART OF HENRY VI. We have already seen that in some instances stolen a id imper fect or mutilated copies of Shakespeare's plays were put forth long before the issuing of any complete and authorized editions. This was the case with The Merry Wives of Windsor and King Henry V., which were first published with but about half their present length, and with less than half their present excellence. Whether the quarto editions of those plays were printed from the Poet's first draughts or sketches fraudulently obtained, or from such mangled outlines as could be gathered at the theatre and made up by unskilful report ers, perhaps cannot be fully determined. There can be little doubt, however, that both those plays, and probably none, that the latte of them, as originally written, were very different from what they are now. And it is not impossible that the quartos may have the double disadvantage of being from rude, mangled, and stolen reports of the plays as presented in their original and unfinished shape. Probably these points have been discussed enough in our Introductions to the plays in question. It has also been seen that The Taming of the Shrew and King John were founded on older dramas of uncertain authorship. those two plays Shakespeare borrowed the plot order, and incidents, with scarce any change, but took little of the character, and none of the language, imagery, or expression. So that the old plays furnished him but the skeletons, which he clothed with such flesh and features, and informed with such life and motion, as none other known to us could originate. These two points are thus stated here, because it seems worth the while to bear them in mind in the trial of certain questions that have been raised touching the two plays that follow this Introduction. THE SECOND PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH was never issued, that we know of, with that title, or in its present state, till in the tolio of 1623, where it is printed with great clearness and accuracy but without any marking of the acts and scenes. The play, how. ever, is but an enlargement of one that was entered at the Stationers', March 12. 1594, and published the same year with a title. page reading as follows: "The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster; with the death of the good Duke Humphrey; and the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolk; and the tragical end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester: With the notable rebellion of Jack Cade; and the Duke of York's first claim unto the crown. London: Printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington; and are to be sold at his shop under St. Peter's Church in Cornwall. 1594." In regard to The Third Part of Henry the Sixth, the circumstances were so nearly the same as to render it on many accounts advisable to speak of them both together. This, also, is but an enlargement of an older play, which was originally published by itself, the title-page reading thus: "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, and the death of the good King Henry the Sixth; with the whole contention between the two Houses Lancaster and York: As it was sundry times acted by the Right Honourable the Earl of Pembroke his Servants. Printed at London by P. S. for Thomas Millington, and are to be sold at his shop under St. Peter's Church in Cornwall. 1595." In 1600 both plays were reissued, the text, the titles, and the publisher, being all the same as in the former. It is to be observed that in these two editions no author's name was given. A third issue of both plays was put forth by Thomas Pavier in 1619, on the title-page of which we have the words,-“Newly corrected and enlarged: By William Shakespeare, Gent." As Pavier's text was merely a reprint of Millington's, the words, "newly corrected and enlarged," would seem to infer that the plays were generally known or supposed to have been revised by the author, and that the publisher committed this piece of fraud, in order that his edition might be thought to have the advantage of such revisal. It is not to be supposed that either the withholding of the name in the first two editions, or the giving of it in the third, proves any thing as to the real authorship one way or the other; for we have seen that the earlier editions of the Poet's plays were often anonymous, and that his name was not seldom pretended in case of plays that he had no hand in writing. The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, as they were called in the old quartos, have been lately set forth with great care and accuracy by Mr. Knight, in the form of supplements, respectively, to the same plays in their revised and finished state. As we believe Shakespeare to have been the author of the plays in their original form, we shall, for convenience, speak of them henceforth as the quarto editions of what appeared in the folio of 1623 as the Second and Third Parts of Henry the Sixth. In the plays, then, thus entitled in the folio, with a few trifling exceptions the entire plan, arrangement, conception, character, and more than half the language word for word, are all the same as in the corresponding quartos. Malone figured out that the two plays, in their present state, contain 6043 lines; and that of these 1899, or nearly one third, were original in the folio, 2373, something more than a third, were altered from the quarto, and 1771, which is somewhat less than a third, were the same in both. And he took the pains to mark the lines peculiar to the folio with asterisks, and those altered from the quarto, with inverted commas; leaving those common to both unmarked. In several editions, the Chiswick being one, his marking, though not always correct, as may be seen by our notes, has been repeated. In the altered lines, however, a large part, certainly not less than half, of the alterations are very slight, often involving nothing more than the change of an epithet, or the transposition of a word, and nowise affecting the sense. Several instances in point will be found spe cified in our notes, so that the matter need not be dwelt upon here. In many cases, moreover, the folio presents a judicious elaboration and expansion of old thoughts, with little or no addition of new ones; so that the difference properly regards but the execution. and scarce touches the conception of the work. Ju be Second Part, again, the alterations and additions are in the main diffused pretty equally through the whole play; while in the Third Part the additions come much more in large masses, some entire scenes being mostly new in the folio, and others nearly the same as in the quarto. For example, in Act i. of the Third Part, out of 581 lines in all, there are but 141 altered from the quarto, and 104 original in the folio, thus leaving 336 the same in both. And in the fourth scene of that Act the proportion of altered and added lines is considerably less, being just one fourth of the whole. On the other hand, in the sixth scene of Act iv. the proportion is still more the other way, there being of 102 lines only 14 either taken or altered from the quarto. Other instances to the same purpose will be found noted as they occur. It will hardly be questioned that the best scenes, the most characteristic, the most Shakespearian,- in the play, are the fourth in Act i., and the sixth in Act v.; and these, as may be seen by our notes, are the very scenes that were least improved or changed in the folio. Perhaps it should be remarked, further, that nearly all the matter of the quartos is retained in the folio, the rejections being very few and small, so that the plays are lengthened just about the amount of the additions made. All together, therefore, we may safely affirm that of the two plays the whole conception and more than half the execution are precisely the same in the quarto and folio editions. Finally, be it observed, that in case of these two plays we have not nearly so great a difference, either of quantity or of quality, between the quartos and the folio, as in case of The Merry Wives of Windsor and King Henry V. Taus far we have gone upon the supposition, which, to say the least, is not improbable, that the plays in hand were originally w.itten as they stand in the quartos, and were afterwards rewritter oy the same hand, which accounts naturally enough for all the differences of the quarto and folio editions; and that the first pubIcation was probably surreptitious, and perhaps made from the original draughts or sketches,, after these were superseded on the stage by the revised and finished copies. At all events, that the quartos were in this case unauthorized may be reasonably presumed, from the fact that the only other publishing of Shakespeare's work by Millington was unquestionably fraudulent. Dr. Johnson, however, thinks there is no reason for supposing them to have been printed from the first draughts of Shakespeare; but that they were "copies taken by some auditor, who wrote down during the representation what the time would permit; then. perhaps, filled up some of his omissions at a second or third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed something like a play, sent it to the printer." Perhaps it will be deemed a sufficient answer to this, that there are some passages in the quartos, which are entirely wanting in the folio; and that there are many passages of blank-verse, and some of them quite lengthy, standing exactly the same in both for it is clear that a reporter, as in the case supposed, however much he might omit, would not be very likely to add; and that so correct an arrangement of blank-verse could not well be attained by the ear alone. Which brings us to the question, whether these plays in their original form were written by Shakespeare. Malone, as was seen in our preceding Introduction, maintains, at great expense of la bour and learning, that neither the First Part, nor the quartos of the Second and Third Parts were by Shakespeare; and, moreover, that the originals of the Second and Third were not by the same author as the First. Thus he holds that the three plays, as we have them, were the work of three several authors, Shakespeare being responsible only for the above-mentioned alterations and additions; and that, on the strength of these, Heminge and Condell took the strange liberty of including all three of the plays in their edition, thus setting them forth to the world as Shakespeare's genuine productions, the Second and Third, because he had somewhat enlarged and improved them, and the First, as being a "necessary introduction to the other two. So far as regards the First Part, Malone's position and arguments were probably discussed enough in our Introduction to that play. His only reason, apparently, for supposing three several authors is precisely the same as one of his main reasons for sup posing two. The argument is so clear, brief, and conclusive, that we can well afford room to state it, even though the statement involve something of repetition. In the First Part, Act iii. sc. 4, King Henry says, "I do remember how my father said." But in one of the added lines of the Second Part, Act iv. sc. 9, the same Henry says,—“But I was made a king at nine months old.” Now, as Shakespeare undoubtedly wrote the additions to the Second Part, it is clear that he knew the king was not of an age, at his father's death, to remember any thing said by him: which concludes at once that Shakespeare could not have written the Firs: Part. Again; in one of the original lines of the Third Part, Act i. sc. 1, the king says, When I was crown'd I was but nine months old:" from which it comes equally clear and conclusive, that the originals of the Second and Third Parts could not have been written by the author of the First. Thus far, however, we have but two authors proved in the three plays; it not appearing but that Shakespeare may have written both the origi nals and the additions of the Second and Third Parts. But the same principle, in another instance, will soon nick him out of all but those additions. In an original passage of the Third Part, Act iii. sc. 2, King Edward, speaking of the Lady Elizabeth Grey, says to Clarence and Gloster: "This lady's husband here, Sir Richard Grey, In honour we cannot deny her suit." In King Richard III., Act i. sc. 3, Gloster says to the same Elizabeth: "In all which time, you and your husband Grey Now, as nobody doubts that Shakespeare was the author of King Richard III., it follows clearly and conclusively that he could not have written the originals of the plays in question. Thus we have three several authors fully proved in case of Henry VI.; one for the First Part, another for the originals, and a third for the additions, of the Second and Third. We have been thus particular in stating this argument, because it is by far the strongest that has been alleged on that side from the internal evidence. And Malone himself lays great stress upon it referring to such instances as we have quoted, he says, "Passages, discordant in matters of fact from his other plays are |