That thofe Plays were not written ORIGINALLY by SHAKSPEARE. SEVERAL EVERAL paffages 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 hiftorical dramas which are the fubject of the present difquifition, were properly afcribed to him; not then doubting that the whole of thefe plays was the production of the fame perfon. But a more minute investigation of the fubject, into which I have been led by the present revifion of all our author's works, has convinced me, that, though the premises were true, my conclufion was too haftily drawn; for though the hand of Shakspeare is unqueftionably found in the two latter of these plays, it does not therefore neceffarily follow, that they were origi nally and entirely compofed by him. My thoughts upon this point have already been intimated in the foregoing notes; but it is now neceffary for me to ftate my opinion more particularly, and to lay before the reader the grounds on which, after a very careful inquiry, 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 difcernible in them, while the VOL. VI. D d inferior inferior parts are not merely unequal to the reft, (from which no certain conclufion can be drawn,) but of quite a different complexion from the inferior parts of our author's undoubted performances. My hypothefis then is, that The First Part of K. Henry VI. as it now appears, (of which no quarto copy is extant,) was the entire or nearly the entire production of fome ancient dramatist; that The Whole Contention of the two Houses of York and Lancafter, &c. written probably before the year 1590, and printed in quarto, in 1600, was alfo the compofition of fome writer who preceded Shakspeare; and that from this piece, which is in two parts, (the former of which is entitled, The firft Part of the Contention of the two famous Houfes of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good duke Humphrey, &c. and the latter, The true Tragedie of Richard 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 firft folio edition of his works. Mr. Upton has asked, "How does the painter diftinguish copies from originals but by manner and ftyle? And have not authors their peculiar flyle and manner, from which a true critick can form as unerring a judgment as a painter " Dr. Johnson, though he has thewn, with his ufual acuteness, that this illuftration of the critick's fcience will not prove what is defired," acknowledges in a preceding note, that "diffimilitude of ftyle and heterogeneoufness of fentiment may fufficiently fhew that a work does not really belong to the reputed author. But in thefe plays (he adds) no fuch marks of fpuriousness are found. The diction, the verfification, and the figures, are Shakspeare's."-By thefe criterions then let us examine The First Part of K. Henry VI. (for I choose to confider that piece feparately;) and if the diction, the figures, or rather the allufions, and the verfification of that play, (for thefe are our fureft guides) fhall 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 I. With refpect to the diction and the allufions, which I fhall confider under the fame head, it is very obfervable that in The First Part of King Henry VI. there are more allufions to mythology, to claffical authors, and to ancient and modern hiftory, than, I believe, can be found in any one piece of our author's written on an English ftory; and that these allufions are introduced very much in the fame 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 fubject, but feem to be inferted merely to fhew the writer's learning. Of thefe the following are the moft remarkable. 1. Mars his true moving, even as in the heavens, This blank, Dr. Johnfon with the higheft probability conjectures, fhould be filled up with "Berenice;" a word that the tranfcriber or compofitor probably could not make out. In the fame manner he left a blank in a fubfequent paffage for the name of " Nero," as is indubitably proved by the following line, which afcertains the omitted word. See N°. 6. 3. Was Mahomet infpired with a dove? 4. Helen, the mother of Great Conftantine, Nor yet Saint Philip's daughters, were like thee. 5. Froifard, a countryman of ours, records, &c. and, like thee, [Nero,] 6. Play on the lute, beholding the towns burning. [In the original copy there is a blank where the word Nero is now placed.] 7. The fpirit of deep prophecy fhe hath, Exceeding the nine Sybils of old Rome. 8. A witch, by fear, not force, like Hannibal, Drives back our troops 9. Divineft creature, Aftræa's daughter-. 10. Adonis' gardens, That one day bloom'd, and fruitful were the next. 11. A ftatelier pyramis to her I'll rear, 12. Than the rich-jewel'd coffer of Darius. 13. I fhall as famous be by this exploit, As Scythian Thomyris, by Cyrus' death. 14. I thought I fhould have feen fome Hercules, A fecond Hector, for his grim afpéct. 15. Neftor-like aged, in an age of care. 17. Where is the great Alcides of the field? That Cæfar and his fortune bare at once. 19. Is Talbot flain; the Frenchman's only scourge, Your kingdom's terror, and black Nemefis? 10. Thou may'st not wander in that labyrinth; There Minotaurs, and ugly treafons lurk. 21. See, how the ugly witch doth bend her brows, As if, with Circe, fhe would change my shape. thus he goes, 22. As did the youthful Paris once to Greece; With hope to find the like event in love. Of particular expreffions there are many in this play, that feem to me more likely to have been used by the authors already named, than by Shakspeare; but I confefs, with Dr. Johnson, that fingle words can conclude little. However, I will juft mention that the words proditor and immanity, which occur in this piece, are not, I believe, found in any of Shakspeare's undifputed performances: not to infift on a direct Latinifm, pile-esteemed, which I am confident was the word intended by the author, though, being a word of his own formation, the compofitor has printed-pil'd-efteem'd, inftead of it'. The verfification of this play appears to me clearly of a different colour from that of all our author's genuine dramas, while at the fame time it refembles that of many of the plays produced before the time of Shakspeare. * See K. Henry VI. P. I, p. 24, Q. 7. In In all the tragedies written before his time, or just when he commenced author, a certain ftately march of verfification is very obfervable. The fenfe concludes or pauses almost uniformly at the end of every line; and the verse has scarcely ever a redundant fyllable. As the reader may not have any of thefe pieces at hand, (by the poffeffion of which, however, his library would not be much enriched,) I shall add a few inftances,-the first that occur: "Moft loyal lords, and faithful followers, Behold, your Brutus draweth nigh his end, And I must leave you, though againft my will. "My finews fhrink, my numbed fenfes fail, "A chilling cold poffeffeth all my bones; Black ugly death, with vifage pale and wan, "Prefents himself before my dazzled eyes, "And with his dart prepared is to strike." Locrine, 1595 "My lord of Gloucester, and lord Mortimer, "Go mount your courfers, meet him on the way: Shining in glory of his fafe return.' Edward I. by George Peele, 1593. "Then go thy ways, and clime up to the clouds, "And tell Apollo that Orlando fits Making of verses for Agelica. "And if he do deny to fend me down The fhirt which Deianira fent to Hercules, Dd 3 "And |