THE CONTENTS.

THE subject stated. The inferior parts in these three plays being of a different complexion from the inferior parts of Shakspeare's undoubted performances, a proof that they were not written originally and entirely by him, p. 223.- Mr. Malone's hypothesis. The First Part of K. Henry VI. not written by him. The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. formed by Shakspeare on two elder plays, the one entitled The First Part of the Contention of the Two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the Death of the good Duke Humphrey, &c. the other, The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, and the Death of good King Henry the Sixt. p. 224.

THE FIRST PART OF KING HENRY VI.

The diction, versification, and allusions, of this piece all different from the diction, versification, and allusions of Shakspeare, and corresponding with those of the dramatists that preceded him, p. 224-231. Date of this play some years before 1592; p. 231. Other internal evidence (beside the diction, &c.) that this piece was not written by Shakspeare; nor by the author of The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses, &c. nor by the author of The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, p. 231 -234. Presumptive proof that this play was not written by Shakspeare, from its not containing any similarities of thought to his undisputed plays, nor of expression, (except in a single instance,) and from its general paucity of rhymes, p. 234, 235.

THE SECOND AND THIRD PART OF KING HENRY VI. I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 1. The entry of The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houses &c. at Stationers' Hall in 1594, anonymous. 2. That piece, and The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, printed in 1600, anonymously. Shakspeare's name afterwards fraudulently affixed to these pieces, and why. The same artifice practised with respect to other plays on which he had constructed dramas, p. 235, 236. 3. These two old plays performed by Lord Pembroke's Servants, by whom Titus Andronicus, and The old Taming of a Shrew were performed, and by whom not one of Shakspeare's undisputed plays were represented, p. 236. 4. Reasons assigned for supposing Robert Greene, or George Peele, or both, the author or authors of the old plays, p. 237, 238. 5. These pieces new-modelled and re-written by Shakspeare, with great additions, which in the present edition are distinguished by a peculiar mark, p. 238, 239. The mode taken by Shakspeare, p. 239-242. 6. The fraud of Pavier the

bookseller, who in the year 1619, after the death of Shakspeare, affixed his name to these two old plays, accounted for, p. 243. 7. These two old pieces being printed and reprinted, and The First Part of King Henry VI. not being printed, in Shakspeare's life time, a presumptive proof that he new-modelled the former, and had little or no concern with the latter, p. 244.

II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 1. The VARIATIONS between the two old plays in quarto, and the corresponding pieces in the folio edition of our author's dramatick works, of so peculiar a nature, as to mark two distinct hands. Several passages and circumstances found in the old plays, of which there is no trace in Shakspeare's new modification of them; others materially varying. These insertions and variations could not have arisen from unskilful copyists or short-hand writers, who sometimes curtail and mutilate, but do not invent and amplify, p. 244249. 2. The RESEMBLANCES between certain passages in Shakspeare's Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. and his undisputed works, a proof that he wrote a large portion of those plays; and 3. The DISCORDANCIES between them and his undisputed plays, a proof that he did not write the whole; these resemblances being found only in the folio, that is, in the plays as new-modelled by Shakspeare; and these discordancies being found in the old quarto plays, from whence it must be presumed that they were adopted through carelessness or haste, p. 249251. 4. The peculiar INACCURACIES of Shakspeare; and 5. his peculiar PHRASEOLOGY, which are found in The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. as exhibited in folio, and not in the old quarto plays printed in 1600, prove that there were two distinct hands in these pieces; p. 252, 254. So also do, 6. The TRANSPOSITIONS, p. 254; and 7. the REPETITIONS, p. 255; and 8. the INCONSISTENCIES arising from sometimes following, and sometimes departing from, an original model, p. 255, 256. 9. Hall, the historian, on whose Chronicle the old plays in quarto were constructed; but Holinshed and not Hall, Shakspeare's historian, p. 256, 257.

The old plays on which Shakspeare formed his Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. probably written by the author of King John, printed in 1591, whoever he was; p. 258. An attempt made to account for The First Part of King Henry VI. being printed in the first folio edition of our poet's dramatick works, p. 258, 259. Objections of Dr. Johnson and others, enumerated. Recapitulation, p. 259, 260. A considerable part of the English history dramatized before the time of Shakspeare; and many of his historical and other plays formed on those of preceding writers, p. 260-262. Conclusion, p. 262.

A

DISSERTATION

ON

THE THREE PARTS

OF

KING HENRY VI.

TENDING TO SHOW

That those Plays were not written ORIGINALLY by SHAKSPEARE.

SEVERAL passages in The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI. appearing evidently to be of the hand of Shakspeare, I was long of opinion that the three historical dramas which are the subject of the present disquisition, were properly ascribed to him; not then doubting that the whole of these plays was the production of the same person. But a more minute investigation of the subject, into which I have been led by the revision of all our author's works, has convinced me, that, though the premises were true, my conclusion was too hastily drawn; for though the hand of Shakspeare is unquestionably found in the two latter of these plays, it does not therefore necessarily follow, that they were originally and entirely composed by him. My thoughts upon this point have already been intimated in the foregoing notes; but it is now necessary for me to state my opinion more particularly, and to lay before the reader the grounds on which, after a very careful enquiry, it has been formed.

What at present I have chiefly in view is, to account for the visible inequality in these pieces; many traits of Shakspeare being clearly discernible in them, while the inferior parts are not merely unequal to the rest, (from which no certain conclusion can be drawn,) but of quite a different complexion from the inferior parts of our author's undoubted performances.

My hypothesis then is, that The First Part of King Henry VI. as it now appears, (of which no quarto copy is extant,) was the entire or nearly the entire production of some ancient dramatist; that The Whole Contention of the Two Houses of York and Lancaster, &c. written probably before the year 1590, and printed in quarto, in 1600, was also the composition of some writer who preceded Shakspeare; and that from this piece, which is in two parts, (the former of which is entitled, The First Part of the Contention of the Two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the Death of the good Duke Humphrey, &c. and the latter, The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, and the Death of good King Henrie the Sixt,) our poet formed the two plays, entitled, The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. as they appear in the first folio edition of his works.

Mr. Upton has asked, "How does the painter distinguish copies from originals but by manner and style? And have not authors their peculiar style and manner, from which a true critick can form as unerring a judgment as a painter?" Dr. Johnson, though he has shown, with his usual acuteness, that "this illustration of the critick's science will not prove what is desired," acknowledges in a preceding note, that "dissimilitude of style and heterogeneousness of sentiment may sufficiently show that a work does not really belong to the reputed author. But in these plays (he adds) no such marks of spuriousness are found. The diction, versification, and the figures, are Shakspeare's."-By these criterions then let us examine The First Part of K. Henry VI. (for I choose to consider that piece separately;) and if the diction, the figures, or rather the allusions, and the versification of that play, (for these are our surest guides) shall appear to be different from the other two parts, as they are exhibited in the folio, and from our author's other plays, we may fairly conclude that he was not the writer of it.

I. With respect to the diction and the allusions, which I shall consider under the same head, it is very observable that in The First Part of King Henry VI. there are more allusions to mythology, to classical authors, and to ancient and modern history, than, I believe, can be found in any one piece of our author's, written on an English story; and that these allusions are introduced very much in the same manner as they are introduced in the plays of Greene, Peele, Lodge, and other dramatists who preceded Shakspeare; that is, they do not naturally arise out of the subject, but seem to be inserted merely to shew the writer's learning.* Of these the following are the most remarkable:

*

to shew the writer's learning.] This appearance of pedantry, if not assumed in imitation of Greene &c. (See Vol. XIII. p. 3.) would only induce