as cannot read in the discovery of our English Chronicles: and what man have you now of that weak capacity that cannot discourse of any notable thing recorded even from William the Conqueror, nay, from the landing of Brute, until this day, being possessed of their true use?" There is a tradition reported by Gildon, (which Percy believes, though Malone pronounces it to be a fiction,) that Shakspere, in a conversation with Ben Jonson upon the subject of his historical plays, said that," finding the nation generally very ignorant of history, he wrote them in order to instruct the people in that particular." It is not necessary that we should credit or discredit this anecdote, to come to the conclusion that, when Shakspere first became personally interested in providing entertainment and instruction for the people, there was a great demand already existing for that species of drama, which subsequently became important enough to constitute a class apart from Tragedy or Comedy. Our belief is that he was the first who saw the possibility of conducting this species of entertainment with dramatic skill—with integrity, if not unity, of action-with action interrupted indeed by the succession of events, but not dissevered-with force and consistency of character-with spirited dialogue and harmonious versification. If he were not the author of The First Part of Henry VI.' and of the two Parts of The Contention,' this praise of giving the first great model of this species of drama is not due to him. If he were the author of those three dramas, it belongs to him, and to him alone.

6

'

The question which we propose to examine is, not who first wrote historical plays, but who first wrote historical plays in the spirit of an artist. We will commence our inquiry with reference to The First Part of Henry VI.' We hold this play to be Shakspere's first historical performance. The form in which we have received it may be a considerable improvement on its first form; and indeed we have no doubt that it was re-cast, as well as the Second and Third Parts. There appears to be little difference of opinion as to the date of its original production. Malone says, in his Chronological Order,' "The First Part of King Henry VI.,' which, I imagine, was formerly known by the name of 'The Historical Play of King Henry VI.,' had, I suspect, been a very popular piece for some years before 1592, and perhaps was first exhibited in 1588 or 1589." Mr. Collier states the general belief" that it is merely the old play on the early events of that reign, which was most likely written in 1589." There can be no doubt that the composition of this play preceded that of the two Parts of 'The Con

6

tention;' and that these had been acted before September, 1592, we know from the fact so often quoted, that Robert Greene, who died in that month and year, had, in his deathbed recantation of his errors, parodied a line which occurs in The Second Part of the Contention.' Putting aside for a moment, then, who was the author of • The First Part of Henry VI.' or of The Contention,' there can be no doubt of the existence of the three plays at the time of Greene's death; and Malone's conjecture, therefore, as to the date of the first of these plays may be received without hesitation. That is all we ask at present to be conceded. Malone's general theory as to the period of Shakspere's commencement as a writer is, that he had not produced any original piece before 1591. Mr. Collier holds that he had not written any of his original plays prior to 1593, (when Marlowe was killed,) although anterior to that year he might have employed himself in altering and improving for representation some of the works of older dramatists.” * • The First Part of Henry VI.' is distinctly held not to fall within the condition of one of the plays so improved. It is come down to us, according to the critical authorities, in its primitive rudeness. its present state, then, according to their opinions, it existed in or before 1589.

In

We will now ask, what other historical plays of any poetical pretension were in existence in 1589? it being remembered that Shakspere was then twenty-five years of age, and a shareholder in the Blackfriars theatre. The old play of The Troublesome Reign of King John of England' was possibly then in existence. It was printed in 1591. Rude as this play may be deemed when compared with the finished 'King John' of Shakspere, it is unquestionably a very much higher performance than‘The Famous Victories,' or 'The True Tragedy of Richard III.' The German critics consider it to be an early production of Shakspere himself. Schlegel and Tieck maintain this opinion without any qualification. Ulrici holds that the comic parts are not his, as they display only rudeness and vulgarity instead of the "facetious grace" of Shakspere; and he thinks that he can trace an older play in this old play. We cannot subscribe either to the unconditional or the qualified opinion; and we take leave to repeat what we have previously said, that "whoever really wishes thoroughly to understand the resources which Shakspere possessed, in the creation of characters, in the conduct of a story, and the employment of lan

*Annals of the Stage, vol. iii., p. 128.

guage, will do well again and again to compare the old play of 'The Troublesome Reign' and the 'King John' of our dramatist.” * Had Shakspere, however, commenced his poetical career a few years later, the old 'King John' would have offered a very remarkable point in the progress of the historical drama. Its coarseness is, in some degree, associated with a power and freedom from which it seems to result, and is as distinct a thing as possible from the 'imbecile vulgarity of The Famous Victories.' Malone, without any authority, assigns this play to Greene or Peele. We now and then unquestionably meet with a passage which may be called poetical, and which may not unworthily be compared with undoubted passages of those writers. There is much of Peele's tinsel too-his straining after poetical images without regard to propriety of situation or character. The Faulconbridge of the old play, for example, talks after this fashion :

"Methinks I hear an hollow echo sound

That Philip is the son unto a king:

The whistling leaves upon the trembling trees
Whistle in concert I am Richard's son:

The bubbling murmur of the water's fall

Records Philippus Regius filius:

Birds in their flight make music with their wings,

Filling the air with glory of my birth :

Birds, bubbles, leaves, and mountains, echo, all
Ring in mine ears that I am Richard's son."

The versification throughout is constructed upon the old monotonous model; yet we should say the blank-verse is not so monotonous as that of Peele.

There is no other historical play aspiring to the character of a work of art, whose production may be placed in or before 1589, but the Edward I.' of Peele. The Edward II.' of Marlowe was undoubtedly later. The anonymous' Edward III.' belongs also, we think, to a later period.

The Edward I.' of Peele bears this title: The famous Chronicle of King Edward the First, sirnamed Edward Longshankes, with his Returne from the Holy Land. Also the Life of Llewellen Rebell in Wales. Lastly, the sinking of Queene Elinor, who sunck at Charing-crosse, and rose againe at Potters-hith, now named Queenehith.' It is evident that a play which deals with the "sinking of Queene Elinor" as a veritable portion of The Famous Chronicle of Edward I.' must be one of those productions from which

* Introductory Notice to 'King John,' vol. iv. p. 238.

Fitzdottrel, the Norfolk simpleton of Ben Jonson's The Devil is an Ass,' obtained his facts:

"Meer. By my faith, you are cunning in the chronicle, sir.

Fitz. No, I confess I have it from the play-books,

And think they are more authentic."

Eleanor, the queen of Edward I., is a name which to this hour is familiar to us all, through the exquisite monumental remains of the affection of her husband which still dot the great road from Tottenham to Northampton. That she "sunk at Charing-cross" before Charing-cross was erected to her memory is a sufficiently remarkable circumstance in Peele's play; but it is more remarkable that, assuming to be a 'Famous Chronicle,' and in one or two of the events following the Chronicles, he has represented the queen altogether to be a fiend in female shape,-proud, adulterous, cruel, treacherous, and bloody. "She was a godly and modest princess," says Holinshed, "full of pity, and one that showed much favour to the English nation, ready to relieve every man's grief that sustained wrong, and to make them friends that were at discord, so far as in her lay." The character of the Eleanor of Peele is held to be taken from a ballad, entitled A Warning Piece to England against Pride and Wickedness,' &c., and thought to be written in the time of Queen Mary. We doubt exceedingly whether the ballad preceded the play; but, at any rate, the incidents of each are the same. The " mayor of London's wife" of the ballad had given offence to Queen Eleanor by appearing in "London streets in stately sort," and the queen's revenge, according to this authority, was after the following remarkable fashion :—

"She sent her into Wales with speed,

And kept her secret there;

And used her still more cruelly

Than ever man did hear.

She made her wash, she made her starch,
She made her drudge alway;

She made her nurse up children small,
And labour night and day.

But this contented not the queen,
But show'd her most despite ;
She bound this lady to a post,
At twelve a clock at night.
And as, poor lady, she stood bound,
The queen (in angry mood)
Did set two snakes unto her breast,

That suck'd away her blood."*

*Mr. Dyce's edition of Peele, vol. i., p. 73.

We transcribe the corresponding scene of Peele's ' Edward I. :'—

"Q. Elin. Now fits the time to purge our melancholy,

And be reveng'd upon this London dame.

Katherina!

Enter KATHERINA.

Kath. At hand, madam.

Q. Elin. Bring forth our London mayoress here.

Kath. I will, madam.

Q. Elin. Now, Nell,

Bethink thee of some tortures for the dame,

And purge thy choler to the uttermost.

Enter MAYORESS and KATHERINA.

Now, mistress mayoress, you have attendance urg'd,
And therefore, to requite your courtesy,

Our mind is to bestow an office on you straight.

May. Myself, my life and service, mighty queen,

Are humbly at your majesty's command.

[Exit.

Q. Elin. Then, mistress mayoress, say whether will you be our nurse or laundress? May. Then, may it please your majesty

To entertain your handmaid for your nurse,

She will attend the cradle carefully.

Q. Elin. O, no, nurse; the babe needs no great rocking; it can lull itself. Katherina, bind her in the chair, and let me see how she 'll become a nurse.

So: now,

Katherina, draw forth her breast, and let the serpent suck his fill. Why so; now she is a nurse. Suck on, sweet babe.

May. Ah, queen, sweet queen, seek not my blood to spill,

For I shall die before this adder have his fill.

Q. Elin. Die or die not, my mind is fully pleas'd.

Come, Katherina: to London now will we,

And leave our mayoress with her nursery.

Kath. Farewell, sweet mayoress: look unto the babe. [Exeunt QUEEN and KATH.

May. Farewell, proud queen, the author of my death,

The scourge of England and to English dames!

Ah, husband, sweet John Bearmber, mayor of London,

Ah, didst thou know how Mary is perplex'd,

Soon wouldst thou come to Wales, and rid me of this pain.
But O! I die; my wish is all in vain.

[Here she dies.

Mr. Hallam has characterised the gross violation of historical truth in this play as "a hideous misrepresentation of the virtuous Eleanor of Castile, probably from the base motive of rendering the Spanish nation odious to the vulgar." The whole play is in truth addressed to the lowest taste of the vulgar, as much a fault of the age as of the inherent false taste of the writer. Where the language is intended to be stately and poetical, it becomes tumid and extravagant. For example, King Edward," in his suit of glass," meets the