Imágenes de páginas

nd. The resultant

The Greene shows
we come to study

he original canvas
es at work, but the
e was perhaps no
ed scenes and posi
obably unwelcome

Is the presence of
east, this presence
ally it practically
curious how a fes
that is difficult to
how some of the
later parts certain
to the Chroniclers
of the conclusion:
ors on the author
eful study of the
ith many of which
eobald and War-
orship of all three
strokes" in them
fority nothing can
ll be inequality!
posed himself to
edge whatever c
-the whole field
s decisive opinior
rther that it was
ts II, and III

of the formation
re's, was Knight
ted by any one
great length and
the questions at
dogmatism they
entured to deny
ies weight; al

though some, like Dyce (2nd ed.) thought that he merely slightly altered and improved an old drama in Henry VI. (Part I.).

For more lengthened opinions of these writers—as many more there be—I would refer to Grant White's excellent review of the position (vii. p. 403 et seq., ed. 1881); Collier's "monstrous opinion" that Shakespeare wrote Part I., but had no hand in The Contention or The True Tragedy; and also Halliwell's elaborate suggestion of "an intermediate composition" amongst these original dramas which complicates matters and is as ingenious as it is unwarranted. Dyce followed Hallam in avowing a strong suspicion that those two old dramas were wholly by Marlowe! Perhaps the most extraordinary of all these imaginings.

Fleay, Furnivall, Ingleby, and Miss Lee have endeavoured to allot accurately the parts in this play that are Shakespeare's to him, and the other parts to Marlowe, or to Peele or Greene as the case may be. They do not agree among themselves except in a general way as to what Shakespeare wrote undoubtedly. Fleay would have Shakespeare's parts "of much later date, and inserted by him"-an unhappy guess. Dr. Ingleby is somewhat similar in his opinion. The very fact of there being no mention of Robert Greene in their views (nor in Furnivall's) puts them out of court in my opinion.

The German critics, Gervinus, Schlegel, Tieck and Ulrici, and Verplanck generally accept this play as Shakespeare's, or mainly Shakespeare's, without labouring much as to who else is concerned. Gervinus, however, removes a quantity of the play from Shakespeare, regarding that which is his as insertions in order to "unite this first part most closely with the second and third, while before it had been totally unconnected with them." He labours the point (as Malone did) that the chief chronicler used was Hall not Holinshed, the latter being Shakespeare's historian." Gervinus simply rejects what he does not think good enough for Shakespeare—what is in contrast with his later mode and manner. He is very good reading, but wholly unconvincing. I find in a footnote that he seems to attribute The Contention and The True Tragedy wholly to Greene. Gervinus differs from Schlegel, Tieck and Ulrici who regard the whole trilogy as undoubtedly Shakespeare's. Ward regards Part I. as having received "passages,




and even scenes" from Shakespeare's hand, Ward states positively, however, "that there is identify Part I. of Henry VI. either with the noted by Henslowe, or with the play alluded t a dogmatic assertion which I can see no justifi for. Ward decides further that Parts II. and I ated by Shakespeare from those older plays wh by some author unknown, which cannot be asc of so distinct a style as Greene, or Marlowe, places Titus Andronicus in exactly the same po

The worst of these conflicting opinions is carry with them a certain amount of conviction is considered. There is no doubt Ward is em in saying that those plays cannot be lightly reg ing to any of the three writers mentioned. exclude a junta, but this discussion is out o present. I will merely say that his argument cannot have been written by Shakespeare (exp the other three authors) because of the chang finished work (Parts II. and III.) seems lame a We must regard Shakespeare as improving and a most rapid rate. What would any of th (admittedly by Shakespeare according to War out like if he handled them over again, a litt little later?

I will now quote from Grant White, alrea His opinion is that: "The First Part of the True Tragedy, and, probably, an early form o of King Henry the VI., unknown to us, were w lowe, Greene and Shakespeare (and perhaps F not improbably as collaborators for the compan Earl of Pembroke's servants, soon after the ar speare in London; and that he, in taking passa times whole scenes, from those plays for his K Sixth, did little more than to reclaim his own." only will I hazard here, leaving the genesis of P to unfold themselves at the proper time. One to add to our difficulties by supposing an earlier The part we have before us is the early form evidence of more hands than Shakespeare's.

land, as an adapter.
ere is no evidence to
the Henry the VI
ded to by Nashe-
ustification whatever
and III. were elabor
́s which were written
ascribed to authors
owe, or Peele. He
e position.

s is that they each
tion until the next
› emphatically right
regarded as belong-
d. This does not
t of place for the
nt that those plays
expunging at one
nges made in the
me and insufficient
and developing at
these three parts
ard) have turned
ttle, even a very

eady referred to
Contention, The
of the first part
written by Mar
Peele) together
y known as the
rival of Shake
ges, and some

King Henry the

Two remarks
arts II, and III
is why are we
orm of Part L
itself bearing

The other is a

warning not to accept this opinion, with regard to The True Tragedy at any rate, since practically, as we shall see, the whole of that play lies embedded in the third part; and whoever wrote the one rewrote it into the other-almost without a doubt or so nearly so that any other influence or co-operation is of the slightest. This cannot at all be said of The Contention and Part II.

Mr. P. A. Daniel has summarised his time-analysis of this play as follows: "Time of this play eight days," with intervals. Day 1, Act I. to Scene vi., Interval; Day 2, Act II. to Scene v.; Day 3, Act III. Scene i., Interval; Day 4, Act III. Scene ii. ; Day 5, Act III. Scene iii., Interval; Day 6, Act III. Scene iv., Act IV. Scene i., Interval; Day 7, Act IV. Scenes ii. to vii., and Act v. to Scene iii., Interval; Day 8, Act v. Scenes iv. and v.

Historic period, say from death of Henry V., 31st August, 1422, to the treaty of marriage between Henry VI. and Margaret, end of 1444.

A few notes on the text, as here given, and I have done. I had begun to efface "the apostrophes and so miss the accent," as Holofernes puts it, in such words as placed, faced, moved, instead of plac'd, fac'd mov'd; when I was glad to find the Cambridge Shakespeare (2nd edition) gave me authority to do so. The removal of the note of admiration from O, to the end of the clause, has also been adopted. A longing to obliterate hyphens by the host has been resisted. Neither in modern nor early editions has principle or uniformity been observed to fall in with. A few more commas have been silently dropped. And the following original (or suggested) readings have been adopted :

entertalk, III. i. 63. See note on making these one word.
him, as in Ff for 'em, iv. vii. 89.

Girt, as in Ff 1, 2, 3, for gird. See note on this undoubted correction.
raging, wood, IV. vii. 35, and moody, mad, iv. ii. 50, dehyphened.
louted, IV. iii. 12, for the meaningless lowted. See note.
Adonis garden, as in Ff, for gardens. See note.

fully omitted (as in Ff), and passage rearranged to F 1, 1. iv. 15.
halcyons days (as in Ff 1, 2) from halcyon, Ff 3, 4.

were (as in Ff) for was of Rowe, etc., 1. iv. 50.

appaled (appal'd Ff), 1. ii. 49, for appall'd. See note.

wrack, as in Ff, for wreck of commentators, 1. i. 135. See note. slew as in Ff for flew of commentators 1. i. 124. See note.



wherein shipp'd, as in Ff 1, 2, 3, for where w edd. v. i. 49.

regions, of Ff, for legions (of commentators), nourish, of Ff, for marish (of commentators),

The Introductions to the three Parts are one another, that none of them can be reg whole.

I am very anxious here to say a word, fully difficult to me to say, on a subject alv thoughts and especially while at work a Shakespeare's plays. I refer to the death of my old, long-tried and most highly valued Craig. It is needless but very pleasurable never-failing courtesy and tact-his unselfish advice and assistance as well as his continued matters Shakespearian, the chiefest labour who knew him knew these things in him how to love Shakespeare thirty or more ye me how to love himself, and but for him my have been void of a prolonged joy. Whet midnight foray on the Wicklow mountains, o plays, in those old Trinity days, he was alw able and sociable of companions—and to the between us never slackened-grappled wit Always broad-minded, and kind-hearted, alwa a gap amongst his mourning friends that thankful his presence once filled so full, whil now for ever remain empty save in the swe and the knowledge of the beneficence of his i

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »