Divided of Henry VI.' reported his uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that aprooves his art.' The first of the three plays dealing with the reign of Henry VI was originally published in the collected edition of Shakespeare's works; the second and third plays were authorship previously printed in a form very different from that which they subsequently assumed when they followed the first part in the folio. Criticism has proved beyond doubt that in these three plays Shakespeare did no more than add, revise, and correct other men's work. In 'The First Part of Henry VI' the scene in the Temple Gardens, where white and red roses are plucked as emblems by the rival political parties (II. iv.), the dying speech of Mortimer, and perhaps the wooing of Margaret by Suffolk, alone bear the impress of Shakespeare's style. The play dealing with the second part of Henry VI's reign was first published in 1594 anonymously from a rough stage copy by Thomas Millington, a stationer of Cornhill, to whom a license for the publication was granted on March 12, 1593-4. The volume, which was printed by Thomas Creede of Thames Street, bore the title 'The first part of the Contention betwixt the two famous houses of Yorke and Lancaster.' The play dealing with the third part of Henry VI's reign was first printed with greater care next year by Peter Short of Bread Street Hill, and was published, as in the case of its predecessor, by Millington. This quarto bore the title "The True Tragedie of Richard, Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henry the Sixt, as it was sundrie times acted by the Earl of Pembroke his servants.' In both these plays, which Millington reissued in 1600, Shakespeare's revising hand can be traced. The humours of Jack Cade in 'The Contention' can owe their savour to him alone. It is clear that after he had hastily revised with another's aid the original drafts of the three pieces, they were put on the stage in 1592, the first two parts by his own company (Lord Strange's men), and the third, under some exceptional arrangement, by Lord Pembroke's men. But Shakespeare was not content to leave them thus. Within a brief interval, possibly for a revival, he undertook a more thorough revision, still in conjunction with another writer. "The First Part of The Contention' was thoroughly overhauled, and was converted into what was entitled in the folio "The Second Part of Henry VI;' there more than half the lines are new. "The True Tragedie,' which became in the folio 'The Third Part of Henry VI,' was less drastically handled; two-thirds of it was left practically untouched; only a third was thoroughly remodelled. Who Shakespeare's coadjutors were in the two successive revisions of the trilogy of Henry VI' is matter for conjecture. The theory that Greene and Peele produced Shakethe original draft of the three parts of 'Henry VI' which speare's coadjutors. Shakespeare recast may help to account for Greene's indignant denunciation of Shakespeare as 'an upstart crow, beautified with the feathers' of himself and his fellow dramatists. Much can be said, too, in behalf of the suggestion that Shakespeare joined Marlowe, the greatest of his predecessors, in the first revision of which 'The Contention' and 'The True Tragedie' were the outcome. Most of the new passages in the second recension seem assignable to Shakespeare alone, but a few suggest a partnership resembling that of the first revision. It is probable that Marlowe began the final revision, but his task was interrupted by his death, and the lion's share of the work fell to his younger coadjutor. Shakespeare shared with other men of genius that receptivity of mind which impels them to assimilate much of the intellectual effort of their contemporaries and to transmute it in the process from unvalued ore into pure gold. Had Shakespeare not been professionally employed in recasting old plays by contemporaries, he would doubtless have shown in his writings traces of a study of their work. The verses of Thomas Watson, Samuel Daniel, Michael Drayton, Sir ShakePhilip Sidney, and Thomas Lodge were certainly among assimilaspeare's the rills which fed the mighty river of his poetic and lyric tive invention. Kyd and Greene, among rival writers of tragedy, power. left more or less definite impression on all Shakespeare's early efforts in tragedy. It was, however, only to two of his fellow dramatists that his indebtedness as a writer of either comedy or tragedy was material or emphatically defined. Superior as Shakespeare's powers were to those of Marlowe, his coadjutor in 'Henry VI,' his early tragedies often reveal him in the character of a faithful disciple of that vehement delineator of tragic passion. Shakespeare's early comedies disclose a like relationship between him and Lyly. Lyly is best known as the author of the affected romance of 'Euphues,' whence in later life Shakespeare, in Lyly's 'Hamlet,' borrowed Polonius's advice to Laertes. Be- influence tween 1580 and 1592 Lyly produced eight trivial and in comedy. Marlowe's influence in tragedy. 'Richard III.' insubstantial comedies, of which seven were written in prose, and one was in rhyme. Much of the dialogue in Shakespeare's comedies, from 'Love's Labour's Lost' to 'Much Ado about Nothing,' consists in thrusting and parrying fantastic conceits, puns, or antitheses. This is the style of intercourse in which most of Lyly's characters exclusively indulge. Three-fourths of Lyly's comedies lightly revolve about topics of classical or fairy mythology in the very manner which Shakespeare first brought to a triumphant issue in his 'Midsummer Night's Dream.' Shakespeare's treatment of eccentric characters like Don Armado and his boy Moth in 'Love's Labour's Lost' reads like a reminiscence of Lyly's portrayal of Sir Thopas, a fat vainglorious knight, and his boy Epiton in the comedy of 'Endymion,' while Lyly's watchmen in the same play clearly adumbrate Shakespeare's Dogberry and Verges. The device of masculine disguise for love-sick maidens was characteristic of Lyly's method before Shakespeare ventured on it for the first of many times in 'Two Gentlemen of Verona,' and the dispersal through Lyly's comedies of songs possessing every lyrical charm is not the least interesting of the many striking features which Shakespeare's achievements in comedy seem to borrow from Lyly's comparatively insignificant experiments. Marlowe, who alone of Shakespeare's contemporaries can be credited with exerting on his efforts in tragedy a really substantial influence, was in 1592 and 1593 at the zenith of his fame. Two of Shakespeare's earliest historical tragedies, 'Richard III' and 'Richard II,' with the story of Shylock in his somewhat later comedy of the 'Merchant of Venice,' plainly disclose a conscious resolve to follow in Marlowe's footsteps. In 'Richard III' Shakespeare, working singlehanded, takes up the history of England near the point at which Marlowe and he, apparently working in partnership, left it in the third part of 'Henry VI.' The subject was already familiar to dramatists. A Latin piece about Richard III, by Dr. Thomas Legge, had been in favour with academic audiences since 1579, and in 1594 the 'True Tragedie of Richard III' from some other pen was published anonymously; but Shakespeare's piece bears little resemblance to either. Shakespeare sought his materials in the encyclopædic 'Chronicle' of Holinshed, the rich quarry to which the whole series of his dramatic pictures of English history was to stand largely indebted. Throughout Shakespeare's 'Richard III' the effort to emulate Marlowe is undeniable. The tragedy is, says Mr. Swinburne, 'as fiery in passion, as single in purpose, as rhetorical often, though never so inflated in expression, as Marlowe's "Tamburlaine" itself.' The turbulent piece was naturally popular. Burbage's impersonation of the hero was one of his most effective performances, and his vigorous enunciation of 'A horse, a horse! my kingdom for a horse!' gave the line proverbial currency. 'Richard II' seems to have followed 'Richard III' without delay. Prose is avoided throughout 'Richard II,' a certain sign of early work. The piece was probably composed very early in 1593. Marlowe's tempestuous vein is far less apparent in 'Richard II' than in 'Richard III.' But although 'Richard II' be in style and treatment less deeply indebted to Marlowe than its predecessor, it was clearly suggested by Marlowe's 'Edward II.' Throughout its exposition of the leading theme - the development and pathetic collapse of the weak king's character-Shakespeare's historical tragedy closely imitates Marlowe's. Shakespeare drew the facts from Holinshed, but his embellishments are numerous, and include the magnificently eloquent eulogy of England which is set in the mouth of John of Gaunt. 'Richard III' and 'Richard II' were each published anonymously in one and the same year (1597) by Andrew Wise at the sign of the Angel in St. Paul's Churchyard; they were printed as they had 'been publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine his servants;' but the deposition scene in 'Richard II,' which 'Richard dealt with a topic distasteful to the Queen, was omitted II.' from the impressions of 1597 and 1598, and it was first supplied in the quarto of 1608. In 'As You Like It' (III. v. 80) Shakespeare parentheti- Acknowcally commemorated his acquaintance with, and his general ledgments indebtedness to, Marlowe by apostrophising him in the lines: lowe. Dead Shepherd! now I find thy saw of might: The second line is a quotation from Marlowe's poem 'Hero to Mar 'Titus Andronicus. Evans snatches of verse from Marlowe's charming lyric, 'Come live with me and be my love.' Between February 1593 and the end of the year the London theatres were closed, owing to the prevalence of the plague, and Shakespeare doubtless travelled with his company in the country. But his pen was busily employed, and before the close of 1594 he gave marvellous proofs of his rapid powers of production. 'Titus Andronicus' was in his own lifetime claimed for Shakespeare, but Edward Ravenscroft, who prepared a new version in 1678, wrote of it: 'I have been told by some anciently conversant with the stage that it was not originally his, but brought by a private author to be acted, and he only gave some master-touches to one or two of the principal parts or characters.' Ravenscroft's assertion deserves acceptance. The tragedy, a sanguinary picture of the decadence of Imperial Rome, contains powerful lines and situations, but is far too repulsive in plot and treatment, and too ostentatious in classical allusions, to take rank with Shakespeare's acknowledged work. Ben Jonson credits "Titus Andronicus' with a popularity equalling Kyd's 'Spanish Tragedy,' and internal evidence shows that Kyd was capable of writing much of 'Titus.' It was suggested by a piece called "Titus and Vespasian,' which Lord Strange's men played on April 11, 1592; this is only extant in a German version acted by English players in Germany, and published in 1620. "Titus Andronicus' was obviously taken in hand soon after the production of 'Titus and Vespasian' in order to exploit popular interest in the topic. It was acted by the Earl of Sussex's men on January 23, 1593-4, when it was described as a new piece; but that it was also acted subsequently by Shakespeare's company is shown by the title-page of the first extant edition of 1600, which describes it as having been performed by the Earl of Derby's and the Lord Chamberlain's servants (successive titles of Shakespeare's company), as well as by those of the Earls of Pembroke and Sussex. was entered on the 'Stationers' Register' on February 6, 1594, to John Danter, the printer, of Hosier Lane, who produced the first (imperfect) quarto of 'Romeo and Juliet.' Langbaine claims to have seen an edition of this date, but none earlier than that of 1600 is now known. The piece was then published, without the playwright's It |