up from notes taken at the theatre during the performance, subsequently patched together, and printed in haste for the satisfaction of public curiosity. Now and then we meet with a few consecutive lines, similar to the authentie copy, but in general the text is miserably mangled and disfigured. The quartos contain no hint of the Chorusses, but a passage in that which precedes Act v. certainly relates to the expedition of the Earl of Essex to Ireland, between the 15th April and the 28th September, 1599, and must have been written during his absence: As by a lower but loving likelihood, Were now the general of our gracious empress The above lines were, therefore, composed between the 15th April and the 28th September, 1599, and most likely the Chorusses formed part of the piece as originally acted. Upon this supposition, the question when Shakespeare wrote his "Henry V." is brought to a narrow point; and confirmed as it is by the omission of all mention of the play by Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, 1598, we need feel little doubt that his first sketch came from the pen of Shakespeare, for performance at the Globe theatre, early in the summer of 1599. The enlarged drama, as it stands in the folio of 1623, we are disposed to believe was not put into the complete shape in which it has there come down to us, until shortly before the date when it was played at Court. time of our great dramatist, for one poet to take up the production of another, and, by making additions to and improvements in it, to appropriate it to his own use, or to the use of the theatre to which he belonged. This practice applied to the works of living as well as of dead poets, and it has been conjectured that when Robert Greene spoke of Shakespeare, as "the only Shake-scene in a country," and as "an upstart crow beautified with our feath ers," he alluded chiefly to the manner in which Shakespeare had employed certain dramas, by Greene and others, as the foundation of his three parts of "Henry VI." These certain dramas were some undiscovered original of the first part of Henry VI.;" the first part of "The Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster," 1600; and "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York," 1595. It was by making additions, alterations, and improvements in these three pieces, that Shakespeare's name became associated with them as their author, and hence the player-editors felt themselves justified in inserting them among his other works in the folio of 1623. There are several other theories respecting the elder plays we have mentioned, but neither of them, as it seems to us, is supported by sufficient testimony. 66 Although no such drama has come down to us, we know, on the authority of Henslowe's Diary, that there was a play called "Harey the VI," acted on 3d March, 1591-2, and so popular as to have been repeated twelve times. This was, perhaps, the piece which Shakespeare subsequently altered and improved, and to which Nash alludes in his "Pierce Penniless," 1592, where he speaks of "brave Talbot" having been made "to triumph again on the stage," after having been two hundred years in his tomb. If our great dramatist founded his first part of FIRST PART OF KING HENRY VI." Henry VI." upon the play produced by Hens written until after March, 1592; but with regard to lowe's company, of course, it could not have been the precise date of its composition we must remain in uncertainty. Malone's later notion was, as we have already observed, that Shakespeare's hand was not to be traced in any part of it; but Steevens called attention to several remarkable coincidences of expression; and though there is the strongest presumptive evidence that more than one author was engaged on the work, passages might be pointed out so much in the spirit and character of Shakespeare, that we cannot conceive them to have come from any other pen. THIS historical drama is first found in the folio of 1623 no earlier edition of it in any shape, or in any degree of imperfectness, has been discovered. This single fact is sufficient, in our mind, to establish Shakespeare's claim to the authorship of it, even were we to take Malone's assertion for granted (which we are by no means inclined to do) that the internal evidence is all opposed to that claim. When Heminge and Condell published the folio of 1623, many of Shakespeare's contemporaries, authors, actors, and auditors, were alive; and the playereditors, if they would have been guilty of the dishonesty, would hardly have committed the folly of inserting a play in their volume which was not his["The second Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the production, and perhaps well known to have been the work of some rival dramatist. Our opinion is therefore directly adverse to that of Malone, who, having been "long struck with the many evident Shakespeareanisms in these plays," afterwards came to the conclusion that he had been entirely mistaken, and that none of these peculiarities were to be traced in the first part of " Henry VI." "I am, therefore (he added), decisively of opinion, that this play was not written by Shake speare. With reference to the question, how far and at what time Shakespeare became connected with the plays, known as the three parts of " Henry VI.," it is necessary to observe, that it was very usual in the SECOND PART OF KING HENRY VI. Good Duke Hvmfrey," was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-seven pages; viz., from p. 120 to p. 146, inclusive, in the division of "Histories." It fills the same place in the subsequent folio impressions.] THE "history" is an alteration of a play printed in 1594, under the following title: "The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Iacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime unto the Crowne. London Printed by Thomas Creed, for Thomas Millington, and are to be sold at his shop under Saint Peter's Church in Cornwall. 1594." By whom it was written we have no information; but it was entered on the Stationers' Registers on the 12th March, 1593. Millington published a second edition of it in 1600: on the 19th April, 1602, it was assigned by Millington to Tho. Pavier, and we hear of it again, in the Stationers' Register, merely as "Yorke and Lancaster," on the 8th November, 1630. The name of Shakespeare was not connected with "the first part of the Contention," until about the year 1619, when T. P. (Thomas Pavier) printed a new edition of the first, and what he called "the second, part" of the same play, with the name of William Shakspeare, Gent." upon the general title-page. The object of Pavier was no doubt fraudulent: he wished to have it believed, that the old play was the production of our great dramatist. erable omissions, as well as large additions, and in the last two Acts he sometimes varied materially from the conduct of the story as he found it in the older play. KING RICHARD III. Containing, ["The Tragedy of King Richard the third. His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther of his innocent nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. At London, Printed by Valentine Sims, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Churchyard, at the signe of the Angell, 1597." 4to. 47 leaves. "The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the piti ful murther of his innocent Nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. By William Shake-speare. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Angell. 1598." 4to. 47 leaves. Shakespeare's property, according to our present notions, was only in the additions and improvements he introduced, which are included in the folio of 1623. But the old play has many passages which Shakespeare rejected, and the murder of Duke Humphrey is somewhat differently managed. general, however, Shakespeare adopted the whole conduct of the story, and did not think it necessary to correct the obvious historical errors of the origi-"The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his nal. In It is impossible to assign a date to this play excepting by conjecture. THIRD PART OF KING HENRY VI. ["The third Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Duke of Yorke," was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-six pages, in the division of "Historics," viz., from p. 147 to p. 172, inclusive, pages 165 and 166 being misprinted 167 and 168, so that these numbers are twice inserted. The error is corrected in the folio, 1632. The play is also contained in the folios of 1664 and 1685.] NONE of the commentators ever saw the first edition of the drama upon which, we may presume, Shakespeare founded his third part of " Henry VI.:" it bears the following title: "The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of the good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants. Printed at London by P. S. for Thomas Millington, and are to be sold at his shoppe under Saint Peters Church in Cornwal. 1595." 8vo. This play, like "the First Part of the Contention," was reprinted for the same bookseller in 1600, 4to. About the year 1619 a re-impression of both plays was published by T. P.; and the name of Shakespeare, as has been already observed in our Introduction to "Henry VI.," part ii., first appears in connection with these "histories" in that edition. The object of Pavier, as before remarked, was no doubt fraudulent. Chalmers, who possessed the only known copy of "The True Tragedy," 1595, without scruple assigned that piece to Christopher Marlowe. Although there is no ground whatever for giving it to Marlowe, there is some reason for supposing that it came from the pen of Robert Greene. As in "Henry VI.," part ii., Shakespeare availed bimself of "The First Part of the Contention," 1594, 80 in "Henry VI.," part iii., he applied to his own purposes much of "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York," 1595. He made, however, consid E treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittifull murther of his innocent Nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most descrued death. As it hath bene lately Acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Newly augmented, by William Shakespeare. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Angell. 1602." 4to. 46 leaves. “The Tragedie of King Richard the third. Conteining his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittifull murther of his innocent Nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath bin lately Acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare. Loudon, Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by Matthew Lawe, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the sigue of the Foxe, near S. Austins gate, 1605." 4to. 46 leaves. In the folio of 1623, "The Tragedy of Richard the Third: with the Landing of the Earle of Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field," occupies thirty-two pages, viz., from p. 173 to p. 204, inclusive. There is no material variation in the later folios.] THE popularity of Shakespeare's "Richard the Third" must have been great, judging only from the various quarto editions which preceded the publication of it in the folio of 1623. It originally came out in 1597, without the name of the author: it was reprinted in 1598, with "by William Shake-speare" on the title-page, and again in 1602, all three impressions having been made for the same bookseller, Andrew Wise, who professed, in his last edition, that the play had been "newly augmented," although it was in fact only a reprint of the previous impressions of 1597 and 1598. On the 27th June, 1603, it was assigned to Matthew Lawe, as appears by an entry in the Stationers' Registers; accordingly, he published the fourth edition of it with the date of 1605: the fifth edition was printed for the same bookseller in 1613. This seems to have been the last time it came out in quarto, anterior to its appearance in the first folio; but after that date, three other quarto impressions are known, viz., in 1624, 1629, and 1634, and it is remarkable that these were all mere reprints of the earlier quartos, not one of them including any of the passages which the player-editors of the folio first inserted in their volume. This fact might show that the publishers of the later quartos did not know that there were any material variations between the earlier quartos and the folio, that they did not think them of importance, or that the pro- | been popular even before prose was employed upon jectors of the folio were considered to have some our stage. In every point of view it may be assertspecies of copyright in the additions. These addi-ed, that few more curious dramatic relics exist in tions extend in one instance to more than fifty lines. our language. It is perhaps the most ancient printIt has also been found that more than one speech in ed specimen of composition for a public theatre, of the folio is unintelligible without aid from the quar- which the subject was derived from English history. tos; and for some other characteristic omissions it is not possible to account. With respect to the additions in the folio of 1623, we have no means of ascertaining whether they formed part of the original play. Steevens was of opinion that the quarto, 1597, contained a better text than the folio: such is not our opinion; for though the quarto sets right several doubtful matters, it is not well printed, even for a production of that day, and bears marks of having been brought out in haste, and from an imperfect manuscript. The copy of the "history" in the folio of 1623 was in some places a reprint of the quarto, 1602, as several obvious errors of the press are repeated. For the additions, a manuscript was no doubt employed; and the variations in some scenes, particularly near the middle of the play, are so numerous, and the corrections so frequent, that it is probable a transcript belonging to the theatre was there consulted. Our text is that of the folio. The earliest entry in the Stationers' Registers relating to Shakespeare's "Richard the Third," is in these terms: "20 Oct. 1597 Andrew Wise] The Tragedie of Kinge Richard the It is certain that there was an historical drama upon some of the events of the reign of Richard III. anterior to that of Shakespeare. Sir John Harington in his "Apologie for Poetry," 1591, speaks of a tragedy of "Richard the Third," acted at St. John's, Cambridge, which would "have moved Phalaris, the tyrant, and terrified all tyrannousminded men:" and Steevens adduced Heywood's "Apology for Actors," 1612, to the same effect. Both those authors, however, referred to a Latin drama on the story of Richard III., written by Dr. Legge, and acted at Cambridge before 1583. Steevens followed up his quotation from Heywood by the copy of an entry in the Stationers' Registers, dated June 19, 1594, relating to an English play on the same subject. A perfect copy of this very rare play is in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, and from it we transcribe the following title-page :— "The true Tragedie of Richard the third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore's wife, an example for all wicked Women. And lastly, the coniunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. London Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by William Bailey, at 1594." his shop in Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore. The piece itself, as a literary composition, deserves little remark, but as a drama it possesses several peculiar features. It is in some respects unlike any relic of the kind, and was evidently written several years before it came from Creede's press, probably as early as 1588. Boswell asserts that "The True Tragedy of Richard the Third" had "evidently been used and read by Shakespeare," but we cannot trace any resemblances, but such as were probably purely accidental, and are merely trivial. Two persons could hardly take up the same period of our annals, as the ground-work of a drama, without some coincidences; but there is no point, either in the conduct of the plot or in the language in which it is clothed, where our great dramatist does not show his measureless superiority. The portion of the story in which the two plays make the nearest approach to each other, is just before the murder of the princes, where Richard strangely takes a page into his confidence respecting the fittest agent for the purpose. Malone was of opinion that Shakespeare wrote "Richard the Third" in 1593, but did not adduce a particle of evidence, and none in fact exists. We should be disposed to place it somewhat nearer the time of publication. KING HENRY VIII. ["The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eight," was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-eight pages; viz. from p. 205 to p. 232, inclusive. It is the last play in the division of “Histories." It fills the same place in the later impressions in the same form.] THE principal question, in relation to Shakespeare's "Henry the Eighth," is, when it was written. We are satisfied, both by the internal and external evidence, that it came from the poet's pen after James I. had ascended the throne, in 1603. Independently of the whole character of the drama, which was little calculated to please Elizabeth, it seems to us that Cranmer's prophecy, in Act v. sc. 4, is quite decisive. There the poet first speaks of Elizabeth, and of the advantages derived from her rule, and then proceeds in the clearest manner to notice her successor : "Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix, Her ashes new create another heir, As great in admiration as herself; So shall she leave her blessedness to one (When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness) meaning; but it has been said that they, and some Ingenuity cannot pervert these lines to any other others which follow them, were a subsequent introduction; and, moreover, that they were the work of Ben Jonson, on some revival of the play in the reign of James I. There does not exist the slightest evidence to establish either proposition. Any person, reading the whole of Cranmer's speech at the christening, can hardly fail to perceive such an entireness and sequence of thoughts and words in it, as to make it very unlikely that it was not dic tated by the same intellect, and written by the same pen. The words "aged princess," in a succeeding line (no part of the imputed addition by Jonson) would never have been used by Shakespeare during The style in which it is composed merits observation: it is partly in prose, partly in heavy blankverse, (such as was penned before Marlowe had introduced his improvements, and Shakespeare had adopted and advanced them,) partly in ten-syllable | rhyming couplets, and stanzas, and partly in the long fourteen-syllable metre, which seems to have the life of Elizabeth. As to external evidence, there is one fact which has never had sufficient importance given to it. We allude to the following memorandum in the Registers of the Stationers' Company : "12 Feb. 1604 "Nath. Butter] Yf he get good allowance for the Enterlude of K. Henry 8th before he begyn to print it; and then procure the wardens hands to yt for the entrance of yt: he is to have the same for his copy." Chalmers asserted that this entry referred to a contemporaneous play by Samuel Rowley, under the title of "When you see me you know me," 1605; but the "enterlude" is expressly called in the entry "K. Henry 8th," and we feel no hesitation in concluding that it referred to Shakespeare's drama, which had probably been brought out at the Globe Theatre in the summer of 1604. No edition of it is known before it appeared in the folio of 1623, and we may infer that Butter failed in getting "good allowance" with "the wardens' hands to it." In the instance of " Henry the Eighth," as of many other works by our great dramatist, there is ground for believing that there existed a preceding play on the same story. Henslowe's Diary affords us some important evidence on this point. According to this authority two plays were written in the year 1601 for the Earl of Nottingham's players, on the events of the life of Cardinal Wolsey, including necessarily some of the chief incidents of the reign of Henry VIII. These plays consisted of a first and second part, the one called "The Rising of Cardinal Wolsey," and the other, "Cardinal Wolsey." We collect that the last was produced first, and the success it met with on the stage was perhaps the occasion of the second drama, containing, in fact, the commencement of the story. Of this course of proceeding Henslowe's Diary furnishes several other examples. We may conclude with tolerable certainty that Shakespeare wrote "Henry the Eighth" in the winter of 1603-4, and that it was first acted at the Globe soon after the commencement of the season there, which seems to have begun towards the close of April, as soon as a theatre open to the weather could be conveniently employed. The coronation procession of Anne Bullen forms a prominent feature in the drama; and as the coronation of James I. and Anne of Denmark took place on the 24th July, 1603, we may not unreasonably suppose that the audiences at the Globe were intended to be reminded of that event, and that the show, detailed with such unusual minuteness in the folio of 1623, was meant as a remote imitation of its splendor. TROILUS AND CRESSIDA. ["The Famous Historie of Troylus and Cresseid. Excellently expressing the beginning of their loues, with the conceited wooing of Pandarus Prince of Licia. Written by William Shakespeare, London Imprinted by G. Eld for R. Boninn and H. Walley, and are to be sold at the spred Eagle in Paules Church-yeard, ouer against the great North doore. 1609." 4to. 46 leaves, "The Historie of Troylus and Cresseida, As it was acted by the Kings Maiesties seruants at the Globe. Written by William Shakespeare, London Imprinted by G. Eld for R. Bonian and H. Walley, and are to be sold at the spred Eagle in Paules Church-yeard, ouer against the great North doore, 1609," 4to. 45 leaves. In the folio of 1623, "The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida" occupies twenty-nine pages, the Prologue filling the first page and the last being left blank. It retains its place in the later folios; but in that of 1685 the Prologue is placed at the head of the page on which the play commences.] THIS play was originally printed in 1609. It was formerly supposed that there were two editions in that year, but they were merely different issues of the same impression: the body of the work (with two verbal exceptions) is alike in each; they were from the types of the same printer, and were published by the same booksellers. The title-pages, as may be seen, vary materially: but there is another the copies first circulated, it is not stated that the more remarkable alteration. On the title-page of drama had been represented by any company; and in a sort of preface headed, "A never Writer to an ever Reader. News," it is asserted that it had never been "staled with the stage, never clapperwords, that the play had not been acted. This was clawed with the palms of the vulgar;" in other probably then true; but as "Troilus and Cressida" it became necessary for the publishers to substitute was very soon afterwards brought upon the stage, a new title-page, and to suppress their preface: accordingly a re-issue of the same edition took place, by the title-page of which it appeared, that the play was printed "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants at the Globe." distinct dates, relating to a play, or plays, called, In the Stationers' Register are two entries, of "Troilus and Cressida:" they are in the following terms: "7 Feb. 1602-3 "Mr. Roberts] The booke of Troilus and Cresseda, as "Rich. Bonion and Hen. Whalleys] Entered for their copie under t' hands of Mr. Segar Deputy to Sir Geo. Bucke, and Mr. Warden Lownes: A booke called the History of Troylus and Cressula" The edition of 1609 was, doubtless, published in consequence of the entry of "28 Jan. 1608-9;" but if Roberts printed a "Troilus and Cressida," whether by Shakespeare or by any other dramatist, in consequence of the earlier entry of "7 Feb. 1602-3," none such has come down to our time. Shakespeare's tragedy was not again printed, as far as can now be ascertained, until it appeared, under rather peculiar circumstances, in the folio of 1623. In that volume the dramatic works of Shakespeare, as is well known, are printed in three divisions-"Comedies," "Histories," and "Tragedies;" and a list of them, under those heads, is inserted at sida" is not found; and it is farther remarkable, the commencement. In that list" Troilus and Cres that it is inserted near the middle of the folio of 1623, without any paging, excepting that the second leaf is numbered 79 and 80: the signatures also do not correspond with any others in the series. Hence it was inferred by Farmer, that the insertion of "Troilus and Cressida" was an afterthought by the player-editors, and that when the rest of the folio was printed, they had not intended to include it. The peculiar circumstances to which we have alluded may, however, be sufficiently accounted for by the supposition that "Troilus and Cressida" was given to, and executed by, a different printer. The list of "Comedies," "Histories," and "Tragedies," at the beginning of the volume was most likely printed last, and the person who formed it accidentally omitted "Troilus and Cressida," because it had been as accidentally omitted in the pagination. of 1609 was not made until after the tragedy had The second issue of Bonian and Walley's edition been acted at the Globe, as is stated on the title page. This is an easy and intelligible mode of accounting for the main differences in the quarto copies; and it enables us with some plausibility to conjecture, that the date when Shakespeare wrote "Troilus and Cressida" was not long before it was first represented, and a still shorter time before it was first printed. Some difficulty has arisen out of the entry, already quoted, of a "Troilus and Cressida" in the Stationers' books, with the date of 7th February 1602-3, in which entry it is stated that the play was "acted by the Lord Chamberlain's servants;" the company to which Shakespeare belonged having been so denominated anterior to the license of James I. in May, 1603. It may, however, be reasonably inferred that this was a different play on the same subject. Every body must be struck with the remarkable inequality of some parts of Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida," especially towards the conclusion: they could hardly have been written by the pen which produced the magnificent speeches of Ulysses and other earlier portions, and were probably relics of a drama acted by the Lord Chamberlain's servants about 1602, and in the spring of 1603 intended to be printed by Roberts. Of this piece it is not impossible that Shakespeare in some degree availed himself; and he might be too much in haste to have time to alter and improve all that his own taste and genius would otherwise have rejected. This brings us to the question of the source from which Shakespeare derived his plot: how far he did, or did not, follow the older play we suppose him to have employed, it is not possible to determine. Shakespeare seems to have been so attentive a reader of Chaucer's five books of Troylus and Creseyda" (of which the last edition, anterior to the production of Shakespeare's play, appeared in 1602) as to have been considerably indebted to them. It is not easy to trace any direct or indirect obligations on the part of Shakespeare to Chapman's translation of Homer, of which the earliest portion came out in 1598. After adverting to the real or supposed origin of the story of "Troilus and Cressida," Coleridge remarks, in his Literary Remains, that it "can scarcely be classed with his dramas of Greek and Roman History; but it forms an intermediate link between the fictitious Greek and Roman Histories, which we may call legendary dramas, and the proper ancient histories; that is, between the Pericles or Titus Andronicus, and the Coriolanus or Julius Cæsar." He then adverts to the characters of the hero and the heroine, and the purpose Shakespeare had in view of portraying them, and goes on to observe: "I am half inclined to believe that Shakespeare's main object, or shall I rather say, his ruling impulse, was to translate the poetic heroes of paganism into the not less rude, but more intellectually vigorous, and more featurely, warriors of Christian chivalry, -and to substantiate the distinct and graceful profiles or outlines of the Homeric epic into the flesh and blood of the romantic drama,-in short, to give a grand history-piece in the robust style of Albert Durer." Schlegel remarks, that "the whole play is one continued irony of the crown of all heroic tales-the tale of Troy," and after dwelling briefly upon this point, he adds: "In all this let no man conceive that an indignity was intended to Homer: Shakespeare had not the Ilind before him, but the chivalrous romances of the Trojan war derived from Dares Phrygius." Shakespeare, in fact, found the story popular, and he applied it to a popular purpose in a popular manner. ADDRESS PREFIXED TO SOME COPIES OF TROILUS AND A never Writer to an ever Reader. News. ETERNAL reader, you have here a new play, never staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar, and yet passing full of the palm comical; for it is a birth of your brain, that never undertook any thing comical vainly and were but the vain names of comedies changed for the titles of commodities, or of plays for pleas, you should see all those grand censors, that now style them such vanities, flock to them for the main grace of their gravities; especially this author's comedies, that are so framed to the life, that they serve for the most common commentaries of all the actions of our lives, showing such a dexterity and power of wit, that the most displensed with plays are pleased with his comedies. And all such dull and beavywitted worldlings, as were never capable of the wit of a comedy, coming by report of them to his representations, have found that wit there that they never found in themselves, and have parted betterwitted than they came; feeling an edge of wit set upon them, more than ever they dreamed they had brain to grind it on. So much and such savored salt of wit is in his comedies, that they seem (for their height of pleasure) to be born in that sea that brought forth Venus. Amongst all there is none more witty than this; and had I time I would comment upon it, though I know it needs not, (for so much as will make you think your testern well bestowed) but for so much worth, as even poor I know to be stuffed in it. It deserves such a labor, as well as the best comedy in Terence or Plautus: and believe this, that when he is gone, and his comedies out of sale, you will scramble for them, and set up a new English inquisition. Take this for a warning, and at the peril of your pleasure's loss, and judgment's, refuse not, nor like this the less for not being sullied with the smoky breath of the multitude; but thank fortune for the scape it hath made amongst you, since by the grand possessors' wills, I believe, you should have prayed for them, rather than been prayed. And so I leave all such to be prayed for (for the states of their wits' healths) that will not praise it.- Vale. CORIOLANUS. ["The Tragedy of Coriolanus" was first printed in the folio of 1623, where it occupies thirty pages, viz.. from p. 1 to p. 30, inclusive, a new pagination commencing with that drama. In the folio of 1632 the new pagination begins "And set up a new English inquisition." This prophecy has been well verified of late years, when (to say nothing of the prices of first editions of Shakespeare's undoubted works) &100 have been given for a copy of the old "Tag of a Shrew," 1594, and £130 for The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York," 1595, merely because they were plays which Shakespeare made use of in his compositions. b"Rather than been prayed." This passage refers, probably, to the unwillingness of the company to which Shake. allow any of their plays to be printed. Such seems to speare belonged, here termed the "grand possessors," to have been the case with all the associations of actors, and hence the imperfect manner in which most of the dramas of the time have come down to us, and the few that issued from the press, compared with the number that were writ ten. The word "them," in "prayed for them," refers to "his comedies," mentioned above. |