Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Queene. I, there's my griefe; king Edward is furprifde, And led away as prifoner unto Yorke.

Riv. The newes is paffing ftrange, I must confeffe; Yet comfort yourselfe, for Edward hath more friends Than Lancaster at this time must perceive,—

That some will fet him in his throne againe.

Queene. God grant they may! but gentle brother, come, And let me leane upon thine arm a while,

Until I come unto the fanctuarie;

There to preserve the fruit within my womb,

King Edwards feed, true heir to Englands crowne.

[Exeunt.

KING HENRY VI. PART III. ACT IV. SCENE IV.

Enter the QUEEN and RIVERS.

Riv. Madam, what makes you in this fudden change?
Queen. Why, brother Rivers, are you yet to learn,
What late misfortune is befall'n king Edward?

Riv. What, lofs of fome pitch'd battle against Warwick?
Queen. No, but the lofs of his own royal person.
Riv. Then is my sovereign flain ?

Queen. Ay, almoft flain, for he is taken prisoner;
Either betray'd by falfhood of his guard,

Or by his foe furpriz'd at unawares :

And, as I further have to understand,

Is new committed to the bishop of York,

Fell Warwick's brother, and by that our foe.

Riv. These news, I muft confefs, are full of grief :

Yet, gracious madam, bear it as you may ;

Warwick may lofe, that now hath won the day.
Queen. Till then, fair hope muft hinder life's decay.
And I the rather wean me from despair,

For love of Edward's offspring in my womb:
This is it that makes me bridle paffion,

And bear with mildness

misfortune's cross
my

Ay, ay, for this I draw in many a tear,
And ftop the rifing of blood-fucking fighs,
Left with my fighs or tears I blaft or drown

[ocr errors]

King Edward's fruit, true heir to the English crown.
Riv. But, madam, where is Warwick then become?
Queen. I am informed, that he comes towards London
To fet the crown once more on Henry's head:
Guefs thou the reft; king Edward's friends muft down.
But, to prevent the tyrant's violence,

(For truft not him that once hath broken faith,)

I'll hence forthwith unto the fan&uary,

To fave at leaft the heir of Edward's right;
There fhall I reft fecure from force, and fraud,
Come therefore, let us fly, while we may fly;
If Warwick take us, we are fure to die.

[Exeunt.

THE TRUE TRAGEDIE OF RICHARDE DUKE of Yorke, &c. Sign. G. 4. edit. 1600.

Enter the Queene, Prince Edward, Oxford, Somerset, with drumme and fouldiers.

Queen. Welcome to England, my loving friends of France; And welcome Somerset and Oxford too. Once more have we spread our failes abroad; And though our tackling be almoft confumde, And Warwicke as our main-maft overthrowne, Yet, warlike lordes, raise you that sturdie poft, That bears the failes to bring us unto reft; And Ned and I, as willing pilots fhould, For once with careful mindes guide on the fterne, To bear us thorough that dangerous gulfe, That heretofore hath fwallowed up our friendes.

KING HENRY VI. PART III. Act V. Scene IV.

March. Enter Queen MARGARET, Prince EDWARD,
SOMERSET, OXFORD, and Soldiers.

Q. Mar. Great lords, wife men ne'er fit and wail their lofs, But cheerly feek how to redrefs their harms.

What though the maft be now blown over-board,

The cable broke, the holding anchor loft,

And half our failors fwallow'd in the flood?
Yet lives our pilot ftill: Is't meet, that he
Should leave the helm, and, like a fearful lad,
With tearful eyes add water to the sea,

And give more ftrength to that which hath too much;
Whiles, in his moan, the ship splits on the rock,
Which industry and courage might have fav'd?
Ah, what a fhame! ah, what a fault were this!
Say, Warwick was our anchor; What of that?
And Montague our top-maft; What of him?
Our flaughter'd friends the tackles; What of these?
Why, is not Oxford here another anchor ?

[blocks in formation]

And Somerset another goodly mast?

The friends of France our fhrouds and tacklings?
And, though unfkilful, why not Ned and I
For once allow'd the fkilful pilot's charge?
We will not from the helm, to fit and weep;

But keep our course, though the rough wind fay-no,
From fhelves and rocks that threaten us with wreck.
As good to chide the waves, as fpeak them fair.
And what is Edward, but a ruthless fea?
What Clarence, but a quick-fand of deceit ?
And Richard, but a ragged fatal rock ?
All these the enemies to our poor bark.
Say, you can fwim, alas, 'tis but a while :
Tread on the fand; why, there you quickly fink:
Beftride the rock; the tide will wash you off,
Or else you famifh, that's a threefold death.
This fpeak I, lords, to let you understand,
In cafe fome one of you would fly from us,
That there's no hop'd for mercy with the brothers,
More than with ruthless waves, with fands, and rocks.
Why, courage, then! what cannot be avoided,
"Twere childish weakness to lament, or fear.*

If the reader wishes to compare The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houfes, &c. with The Second Part of King Henry VI. which was formed upon it, he will find various paffages quoted from the elder drama in the notes on that play. The two celebrated fcenes, in which the dead body of the Duke of Glofter is described, and the death of Cardinal Beaufort is reprefented, may be worth examining with this view; and will fufficiently afcertain how our author proceeded in newmodelling that play; with what expreflion, animation, and fplendour of colouring, he filled up the outline that had been 1ketched by a preceding writer.+

Shakspeare having thus given celebrity to these two old dramas, by altering and writing feveral parts of them over again, the bookfeller, Millington, in 1593-4, to avail himself of the popularity of the new and admired poet, got, perhaps from Peele, who was then living, or from the author, whoever he was, or from fome of the comedians belonging to the Earl of Pembroke,

Compare alfo the account of the death of the Duke of York (p. 50) and King Henry's foliloquy (p. 79) with the old play as quoted in the notes.--Sometimes our author new-verfified the old, without the addition of any new, matter. See p. 152, n. 7.

+ Sec Vol. XIII. p. 289, n. 6; and p. 304, n. 8. Compare alfo Clifford's speech to the rebels in p. 354, Buckingham's addrefs to King Henry in p. 234, and Iden's speech in p. 363, with the old play, as quoted in the notes.

the original play on which The Second Part of King Henry VI. was founded; and entered it on the Stationers' books, certainly with an intention to publish it. Why it did not then appear, cannot be now afcertained. But both that, and the other piece on which The Third Part of King Henry VI. was formed, was printed by the fame bookfeller in 1600, either with a view to lead the common reader to fuppofe that he fhould purchase two plays as altered and new-modelled by Shakspeare, or, without any fuch fraudulent intention, to derive a profit from the exhibition of a work that fo great a writer had thought proper to retouch, and form into thofe dramas which for several years before 1600 had without doubt been performed with confiderable applaufe. In the fame manner The old Taming of a Shrew, on which our author formed a play, had been entered at Stationers' Hall in 1594, and was printed in 1607,* without doubt with a view to pass it on the publick as the production of Shakspeare. When William Pavier republished The Contention of the Two Houfes, &c. in 1619, he omitted the words in the original titlepage," as it was acted by the earl of Pembrooke his fervantes ;" -juft as, on the republication of King John in two parts, in 1611, the words,-" as it was acted in the honourable city of London," were omitted; because the omitted words in both cafes marked the refpective pieces not to be the production of Shakspeare. And as in King John the letters W. Sh. were added in 1611 to deceive the purchafer, fo in the republication of The Whole Contention &c. Pavier, having difmiffed the words above mentioned, inferted thefe: "Newly CORRECTED and ENLARGED by William Shakfpeare;" knowing that these pieces had been made the ground work of two other plays; that they had in fact been corrected and enlarged, (though not in that copy which Pavier printed, which is a mere republication from the edition of 1600,) and exhibited under the titles of The Second and Third Part of King Henry VI.; and hoping that this new edition of the original plays would pafs for thofe altered and augmented by Shakspeare, which were then unpublished.

If Shakspeare had originally written these three plays of King Henry VI. would they not probably have been found by the book

* Alfo, as it has lately been discovered, by Cuthbert Burbie, in 1596. REED. + Pavier's edition has no date, but it is afcertained to have been printed in 1619, by the fignatures; the last of which is Q. The play of Pericles was printed in 1619, for the fame book feller, and its first fignature is R. The undated copy, therefore, of The Whole Contention &c. and Pericles, muft have been printed at the fame time.

See An Attempt to ascertain the Order of Shakspeare's Plays, Vol. II. article, King John.

feller in the fame MS? Would not the three parts have been procured, whether furreptitiously or otherwife, all together? Would they not in that MS. have borne the titles of The First and Second and Third Part of King Henry VI.? And would not the bookfeller have entered them on the Stationers' books, and published fuch of them as he did publish, under thofe titles, and with the name of Shakspeare? On the other hand, if that which is now diftinguished by the name of The First Part of King Henry VI. but which I fuppofe in thofe times was only called "The Hiftorical Play of King Henry VI." if this was the production of fome old dramatift, if it had appeared on the ftage fome years before 1591, (as from Nafhe's mention of it seems to be implied,) perhaps in 1587 or 1588, if its popularity was in 1594 in its wane, and the attention of the publick was entirely taken up by Shakspeare's alteration of two other plays which had likewife appeared before 1591, would not the fuperior popularity of these two pieces, altered by fuch a poet, attract the notice of the bookfellers and finding themselves unable to procure them from the theatre, would they not gladly feize on the originals on which this new and admired writer had worked, and publish them as foon as they could, neglecting entirely the preceding old play, or Firft Part of King Henry VI. (as it is now called,) which Shakspeare had not embellished with his pen ?-Such, as we have feen, was actually the procefs; for Thomas Millington, neglecting entirely The First Part of King Henry VI. entered the ORIGINAL of The Second Part of King Henry VI. at Stationers' Hall in 1593-4, and published the ORIGINALS of both that and The Third Part in 1600. When Heminge and Condell printed thefe three pieces in folio, they were neceffarily obliged to name the old play of King Henry VI. the first part, to distinguish it from the two following hiftorical dramas, founded on a later period of the fame king's reign.

Having examined fuch external evidence as time has left us concerning these two plays, now denominated The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. let us fee whether we cannot by internal marks afcertain how far Shakspeare was concerned in their compofition.

It has long been a received opinion that the two quarto plays, one of which was published under the title of The First Part of the Contention of the Two Houfes of Yorke and Lancaster, &c. and the other under the title of The true Tragedie of Richarde Duke of Yorke, &c. were fpurious and imperfect copies of Shakfpeare's Second and Third Part of King Henry VI.; and many paffages have been quoted in the notes to the late editions of Shakspeare, as containing merely the various readings of the quartos and the folio; the paffages being fuppofed to be in fub

« PředchozíPokračovat »