proved by this discordancy not to have been composed by him; and these discor tant passages, being found in the original quarto plays, prove that those pieces were composed by another writer." Perhaps enough was said by way of answer to this point in our Introduction to the First Part. Two discrepancies of the same kind were there adduced, from which, however, nobody thinks of inferring any such diversity of authorship. It will not take long to add two more. In The First Part of Henry IV., Act i. sc. 3 the king speaks of "the foolish Mortimer" as Hotspur's "brotherin-law," and a little after in the same scene Hotspur boils over thus:

"And when I urg'd the ransom once again

Of my wife's brother, then his cheek look'd pale,
And on my face he turn'd an eye of death,
Trembling even at the name of Mortimer."

And again, the same speaker: "Did King Richard, then, proclaim my brother Edmund Mortimer heir to the crown?" In Act iii. sc. 1, however, of the same play, we have Mortimer referring thus to Hotspur's wife: "Good father, tell her, that she and my aunt Percy shall follow in your conduct speedily." Again; in the Third Part of Henry VI., Act i. sc. 1, the king says to York

"What title hast thou, traitor, to the crown?
Thy father was, as thou art, duke of York;"

as if York's title had come to him by inheritance. And yet, a few lines before, Exeter, speaking of the present king to York, says, "He made thee duke of York;" as if the title had been conferred on him by express grant from the king, which was indeed the case. It will be worth the while to add, that both of these passages are in the original form of the Third Part. And as the matter is rightly set forth in the First Part, one of the passages might be quoted to prove that the two plays were, and the other, that they were not, by the same author. Divers other instances more or less in point might easily be adduced; and indeed there are so many discrepancies of this kind in Shakespeare's undoubted plays, that one may well be surprised to find an editor urging them for such a purpose. Besides, even according to Malone's showing, one of the passages thus referred to, that touching the Lady Elizabeth, was considerably altered by Shakespeare. And if the Poet had been so careful to avoid such discrepancies as Malone's argument supposes, it does not well appear why in altering the verse he did not correct the facts. Finally, one more instance of similar discrepancy may as well be referred to, as, on Malone's principle, it will prove that the Second and Third Parts in the quarto form must have been by different authors; so that we shall have four authors in the case, one for each of the three parts in their

original state, and a fourth for the latter two in so far as the folio differs from th quartos. But as the matter will be found specified in the last play of the series, Act i. sc. 1, note 1, there needs no further agitation of it here.

Of the other points in Malone's argument from the internal evi dence, the only ones worth noticing may be quickly despatched. as they call for little if any thing more than a flat denial. The first is, that in his undoubted plays we often find Shakespeare reproducing the same thoughts in othe, yet resembling, forms of expression; and that the quarto copies of the Second and Third Parts have not the usual number of thoughts and expressions re sembling those to be met with in his other plays, while the folio additions are proportionably much more frequent in such resemblances. Now, to affirm the reverse of this, were probably nearer the truth. As Malone's method of reasoning was so highly figurative, Knight has here brought the power of figures to bear, and shown that in the original form of the two plays there are no less than fourteen such resemblances; which is a greater number, proportionably, than it will be easy to find in the additions.

The second of the points in question is, that the Shakespearian peculiarities of thought and speech occur more frequently in the added portions. Which, even if it were true, would prove nothing to the purpose, the additions having of course been written some time after the originals, and when the author had grown and ripened more out of the common into his individual style of thought and speech. Moreover, this argument would make with at least equal force that Shakespeare did not, though no one questions that he did, write the originals of his Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet; it being certain that what was afterwards added to those plays in the revisal is proportionably much richer in Shakespearian peculiarity. But, in the plays under consideration, this is not true, as any one that has an eye for such things may be amply certified by the specimens given in our notes. The cause of the matter's being otherwise in this case may be, that the revising took place at a less interval from the first writing. before the author's style had undergone much change, and when his power was not enough greater to make up for the less inspiration that would naturally attend a revisal.

Nor is Malone a whit stronger in his arguing of the question from external evidence. In the first place, he urges the fact that Shakespeare's name was not mentioned in the entry of the Second Part at the Stationers', March 12, 1594, nor in the title-pages of the first two editions. But this, as we have repeatedly seen, was a common practice. For example, King Richard II. was entered at the Stationers', August 29, 1597, and published the same year; The First Part of Henry IV. was entered, February 25, 1598, and published that year; also, King Richard III. was entered, October 20. 1597. and published that year; in every one of which cases

Again, he alleges there was no mention of the author's name. the circumstance that in the title of the quarto the Third Part is said to have been acted by the earl of Pembroke's servants, a company to which Shakespeare never belonged. Which point we may safely leave where it was left in our Introduction to the Another circumstance urged First Part, page 13 of this volume. is, that in the title-page of Pavier's quarto the plays are said to have been "newly corrected and enlarged by William Shakespeare," as if this inferred that Shakespeare did not write them ; whereas the "By William Shakespeare" evidently refers no less to the writing than to the correcting and enlarging.

There is, however, one piece of external evidence which inust be allowed to carry some weight. We have seen that Malone's argument from the discrepancies of statement would, if admitted, necessarily conclude four authors in the case, one for each of the three parts as first written, and a fourth for the additions of the folio. And in fact Malone himself supposes four, and the forthcoming item of external evidence, so far as it may hold good, will It is a passage, quoted infer as many, and probably one to boot. in Volume III., page 395 of this edition, from Greene's Groatsworth of Wit: "Yes, trust them not; for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that, with his tigre's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank-verse as the best of you, and, being an absolute Johannesfac-totum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country." Greene died September 3, 1592, and this was a part of his death quondam ac bed repentance. The tract was addressed to his " quaintance," Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele, who may all be set down as included in the words, "beautified with our feathers: " meant Shakespeare; there is no doubt that the upstart crow and "his tigre's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide" is a parody of an original line in The Third Part of Henry VI., Act i. sc. 4:0 tigre's heart, wrapp'd in a woman's hide!" thus ascertaining at least that that play, as it stands in the quarto, was written before Greene's death.

The parodied line, however, is thought to identify the plays in question as the particular feathers with which the upstart crow had beautified himself. And, surely, if Shakespeare had indeed been guilty of such an enormous piece of literary theft as the case supposes, he most richly deserved all that was said of him, and as much more of the same kind as could be said; and, obviously, the best course for himself and his friends to take had been not to complain of the charge, out just to keep as quiet as they possibly could. A short time after Greene's death, his tract was published by Henry Chettle. The tract gave great offence to the parties attacked; and a few months later their complaints were answered by Chettle in a pamphlet entitled Kind-Heart's Dream, which has the following in reference to Shakespeare: "I am as sorry as if

the original fault had been my fault, because myself have seen his demeanor no less civil, than he excellent in the quality he professes: besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art." Surely, if, with a full knowledge of the facts, he had especially undertaken to clear Shakespeare from the charge, and from all suspicion, of having beautified himself with stolen plumes, he could scarce have used words more apt for his purpose. This acquittal, moreover, is greatly confirmed by Thomas Nash, who, the writing of Greene's tract having been by some attributed to him, has the following in an epistle prefixed to the second edition of his Pierce Penniless: "Other news I am advertised of, that a scald, trivial, lying pamphlet, call'd Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, is given out to be of my doing. God never have care of my soul, but utterly renounce me, if the least word or syllable in it proceeded from my pen, or if I were any way privy to the writing or printing of it."

Now, whatsoever motives may be thought to have prompted these disavowals of Chettle and Nash, it will hardly be questioned that the acquittal was as well-grounded as the indictment had been. For if Greene's charges had been true, it is difficult to conceive how they should have been more disreputable to the author than to the subject of them. And in the passage quoted from him he is evidently far more vituperative of others' sins than repentant of his own; which, to say the least, is as little suited to a preparation for death, as the matter charged is to an honourable standing in life. At all events, it may well be thought that in Greene's case the expectation of death, instead of making him bold to speak the truth, had rather taken off from his envy the restraints of fear, and thus emboldened him to lie.

Mr. Collier, however, quotes, as in confirmation of Greene's charge, a passage from a tract by R. B., entitled Greene's Funerals, and published in 1594, wherein the writer, speaking of others' obligations to Greene, adds,

44

Nay, more, the men that so eclips'd his fame

Purloin'd his plumes, can they deny the same?"

This might indeed amount to something, if it had the appearance of being an independent authority; but does it not sound too much as a mere echo of what Greene himself had said before? Or, if it be thought that Greene's envy must have had somewhat to work upon, else it would scarce have taken so specific a shape, perhaps there was matter enough short of such a wholesale appropriation of other men's works. For example, in The First Part of Henry VI., Act v. sc. 3, occurs the following:

"She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd;
She is a woman. therefore to be won."

The latter of these lines, as Mr. Collier tells us, is found in Greene's Planetomachia, which was printed as early as 1585 Again, two of the original lines in the Third Part, Act v. sc. 6 are these, uttered by Richard while stabbing Henry.

"If any spark of life remain in thee,

Down, down to hell, and say I sent thee thither."

And in Greene's Alphonsus, King of Arragon, the hero speaks thus to Flaminius while killing him :

"Go, pack thee hence unto the Stygian lake.
And make report unto thy traitorous sire,
How well thou hast enjoy'd the diadem,

Which he by treason set upon thy head:

And if he ask thee who did send thee down,

Alphonsus say, who now must wear thy crown."

Might not a few such borrowed feathers as these suffice to start and to set Greene's exaggerations of envy and spleen? But, if these be not enough, there strong reason, as was seen in our Introduction to that play, to think that Greene was the author of the old play whereon Shakespeare founded his Taming of the Shrew.

And

Mr. Dyce, also, collates a number of original passages from the two plays in question with similar ones in Marlowe's Edward II. Thus in the Second Part, Act i. sc. 3: "She bears a duke's whole revenues on her back." And in Edward II.: He wears a lord's revenue on his back." Again, in the Third Part, Act v. sc. 2: "Thus yields the cedar to the axe's edge, whose arms gave shelter to the princely eagle." And in Edward II. : "A lofty cedar-tree, fair-flourishing, on whose top-branches kingly eagles perch." there are several others, in some of which the resemblances are still closer. It need scarce be said that such resemblances infer a borrowing one way or the other. Now the argument from Greene's tract supposes both the originals and the additions of the Second and Third Parts to have been written before September, 1592. Marlowe was killed, June 1, 1593, in his 29th year, and his Edward II. was entered at the Stationers', July 6, 1593. It is on all hauds allowed to be far the best, and probably the last-written of his plays. Its superiority of style to his Tamburlaine, which was probably written as early as 1587, is so great, as naturally to sug gest the influence of new and better models; since without st ch help one could scarce make so much advance in so short a time. Might it not well be, then, that in so close a study of those models divers passages got planted in his memory, and when, shortly after, he went to writing on a kindred subject, transferred themselves to his page? Or, if we suppose his Edward II. to have preceded