There is, however, a circumstance connected with the chronology of this play, which has been entirely overlooked by Malone and the other commentators; and which we approach with some hesitation, when we consider what labour they have bestowed in bringing to light parallel passages of the text of Shakspere, from the most obscure authors. The first four books of Daniel's "Civil Warres," three of which are almost wholly occupied with the story of Richard II., were first published in 1595. We have looked at this poem with some care, and we cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that, with reference to parts of the conduct of the story, and in a few modes of expression, each of which differ from the general narrative and the particular language of the chroniclers, there are similarities betwixt Shakspere and Daniel, which would lead to the conclusion, either that the poem of Daniel was known to Shakspere, or the play of Shakspere was known to Daniel. We will slightly run over these similarities, and then, with much diffidence, offer a conclusion. In the first Scene of Richard II. the king says, in regard to the appeal of Bolingbroke against Norfolk, "Tell me, moreover, hast thou sounded him, If he appeal the duke on ancient malice." Daniel adopts Froissart's version of the story, that Norfolk first accused Bolingbroke; but Froissart has not a word of "ancient malice"-he simply makes the king exclaim, "Why say you these words -we will know it." Holinshed, when he makes Hereford first appeal Norfolk of treason, shews the king as hearing them both, and dismissing them with,-" no more-we have heard enough." Daniel thus gives the scene : "Hereof doth Norfolk presently take hold, And to the king the whole discourse relate: But judging it proceeded out of hate," &c. In the fourth Scene of the second Act, the Welsh Captain thus describes the portents which shewed that "the king is dead :" "The bay-trees in our country are all wither'd, Shakspere found the "bay-trees" in Holinshed::- "In this year, in a manner throughout all the realm of England, old bay-trees withered, and afterwards, contrary to all men's thinking, grew green again,— a strange sight, and supposed to import some unknown event." The other prodigies are in Daniel : "Red fiery dragons in the air do fly, And burning meteors, pointed streaming lights, In the third Scene of the third Act, we have a particular expression, unnoticed by the commentators, which finds a parallel in Daniel : in Daniel we have: "Ten thousand bloody crowns of mothers' sons "Th' ungodly bloodshed that did so defile Daniel had read Stow, although he might not have seen the "Metrical History;" and he gives a minute description of the ambush of Northumberland between Conway and Flint. This poet has been called, and properly, by Drayton, "Too much historian in verse." Shakspere drew the distinction between poetry and history, and he, therefore, gives us not this melodramatic episode. But the entry of Bolingbroke and Richard into London equally came within the province of history and poetry. Matchless and original as this description is in Shakspere, there is something very similar in Daniel, which is not in the chroniclers : "He that in glory of his fortune sate, Admiring what he thought could never be, And lift up his rejoicing soul, to see So many hands and hearts congratulate The unregarded king; that drooping went In th' other, worse than worst of all disgrace." We have mentioned in our Historical Illustration to Act V., that Daniel, as well as Shakspere, makes the queen use the language of a woman. There was poetical truth in this, with some foundation in historical exactness. Isabel, according to Froissart, had at eight years old the port of a queen. But it is remarkable that two poets should have agreed in a circumstance which forms no part of the ordinary historical narration. Daniel makes the resignation of the crown by Richard take place in the Tower; but he gives the scene the same pomp and ceremony with which Shakspere has invested it at Westminster. In the speech of the Bishop of Carlisle we have these words in Shakspere:"What subject can give sentence on his king? And who sits here that is not Richard's subject?" The words in Holinshed, from which the speech is said to be copied are these, "There was none amongst them worthy or meet to give judgment upon so noble a prince as King Richard was, whom they had taken for their sovereign and liege lord, by the space of two-and-twenty years and more." In Daniel we have these words of the Bishop : Never shall this poor breath of mine consent, That he that two-and-twenty years have reign'd Lastly, in the death of Richard, Daniel, as barbarously murdered by Sir Piers of Exton. assassin : well as Shakspere, follows the story that he was Shakspere puts these words into the mouth of the "Didst thou not mark the king, what words he spake? Holinshed has, "King Henry, sitting on a day at his table, sore sighing, said, 'Have I no faithful friend which will deliver me of him whose life will be my death, and whose death will be the preservation of my life.'" Daniel shews Henry perturbed while Richard lived, "And wished that some would so his life esteem, As rid him of these fears wherein he stood." Are these resemblances accidental? We think not. Neither do we think that the parallel passages are derived from common sources. Did Daniel copy Shakspere? We think not. He was of a modest and retiring nature, and would purposely have avoided provoking a comparison, especially in the scene describing the entrance of Richard and Bolingbroke into London, in which he has put out his own strength, in his own quiet manner. Shakspere, on the contrary, as it appears to us, took up Daniel's "Civil Warres," as he took up Hall's, or Holinshed's, or Froissart's "Chronicles," and transfused into his play, perhaps unconsciously, a few of the circumstances and images that belonged to Daniel in his character of poet. Daniel's "Civil Warres" was, in truth, founded upon a false principle. It attempts an impossible mixture of the Poem and the Chronicle,-wanting the fire of the one and the accuracy of the other, and this from the one cause, that Daniel's mind wanted the true poetical elevation. Believing, therefore, that Shakspere's Richard II. contains passages that might have been suggested by Daniel's "Civil Warres," we consider that the play was written at a very short period before its publication, in 1597. The exact date is really of very little importance; and we should not have dwelt upon it, had it not been pleasant to trace resemblances between contemporary poets, who were themselves personal friends. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF RICHARD II. The Richard II. of Shakspere is the Richard II. of real history. The events as they are detailed by the historians, in connexion with the use which Shakspere has made of those events, are pointed out in the Historical Illustrations to each Act. But there is a question whether, as the foundation of this drama, Shakspere worked upon any previous play. No copy of any such play exists. The character of Richard is so entire,-so thoroughly a whole,—that we can have little doubt in believing it to be a creation, and not a character adapted to the received dramatic notions of the poet's audience. But still there is every reason to suppose that there was another play of Richard II.—perhaps two others; and that one held possession of the stage long after Shakspere's exquisite production had been acted and published. There is a curious matter connected with the state history of Shakspere's own times, that has regard to the performance of some play of Richard II. On the afternoon previous to the insurrection of the Earl of Essex, in February, 1601, Sir Gilly Merrick, one of his partisans, procured to be acted before a great company of those who were engaged in the conspiracy, "the play of deposing Richard II." The official pamphlet of the declarations of the treasons of the Earl of Essex states, that when it was told Merrick, by one of the players, that the play was old, and they should have loss in playing it, because few would come to it, there was forty shillings extraordinary given to play it; and so, thereupon, played it was." In the printed account of the arraignment of Merrick, it is said, that he ordered this play "to satisfy his eyes with a sight of that tragedy which he thought soon after his lord should bring from the stage to the state." There is a passage in Camden's Annals which would appear to place it beyond a doubt, that the play so acted was an older play than that of Shakspere. It is there charged against Essex, that he procured, by money, the obsolete tragedy (exoletam tragœdiam) of the abdication of Richard II. to be acted in a public theatre, before the conspiracy. Bacon hints at a systematic purpose of bringing Richard II. "upon the stage, and into print in Queen Elizabeth's time." Elizabeth herself, in a conversation with Lambarde, the historian of Kent, and keeper of the Records in the Tower, going over a pandect of the Rolls which Lambarde had prepared, coming to the reign of Richard II. said, "I am Richard II., know ye not that?" Any allusion to Richard II., at that time, was the cause of great jealousy. Haywarde, in 1599, very narrowly escaped a state prosecution, for his "First Part of the Life and Reign of King Henry IV." This book was the deposition of Richard II. put "into print," to which Bacon alludes. It appears to us that, without further evidence, there can be no doubt that the play acted before the partisans of the Earl of Essex was not the play of Shakspere. The deposition-scene, we know, professed to be added to the edition of 1608. The play which Merrick ordered was, in 1601, called an obsolete play. Further, would Shakspere have continued in favour with Elizabeth, had he been the author of a play whose performance gave such deep offence? But we have now further evidence that there was an old play of Richard II., which essentially differed from Shakspere's play. Mr. Collier, whose researches have thrown so much light upon the stage in general, and upon Shakspere's life in particular, has published some very curious extracts from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, which describe, from the observations of a play-goer in the time of James I., a play of Richard II., essentially different in its scenes from the play of Shakspere. Dr. Symon Forman, who was a sort of quack and astrologer, and who, being implicated in the conspiracy to murder Sir Thomas Overbury, had escaped public accusation by suddenly dying in 1611, kept "a book of plays and notes thereof, for common policy;" by which 'common policy" he means-for maxims of prudence. His first entry is entitled "in Richard II., at the Globe, 1611, the 30 of April, Thursday." From the extract which we shall take the liberty of giving from Mr. Collier's book, it will be seen, that at Shakspere's own theatre, the Globe, a Richard II. was performed, which was, unquestionably, not his Richard II. "Remember therein how Jack Straw, by his overmuch boldness, not being politic nor suspecting anything, was suddenly, at Smithfield bars, stabbed by Walworth, the Mayor of London, and so he and his whole army was overthrown. Therefore, in such case, or the like, never admit any party without a bar between, for a man cannot be too wise, nor keep himself too safe. "Also remember how the Duke of Glocester, the Earl of Arundel, Oxford, and others, crossing the king in his humour about the Duke of Erland (Ireland) and Bushy, were glad to fly and raise a host of men and being in his castle, how the Duke of Erland came by night to betray him, with three hundred men; but, having privy warning thereof, kept his gates fast, and would not suffer the enemy to enter, which went back again with a fly in his ear, and after was slain by the Earl of Arundel in the battle. "Remember, also, when the Duke (i. e. of Glocester) and Arundel came to London with their army, King Richard came forth to them and met them, and gave them fair words, and promised them pardon, and that all should be well, if they would discharge their army: upon whose promises and fair speeches they did it; and after, the king bid them all to a banquet, and so betrayed then and cut off their heads, &c., because they had not his pardon under his hand and seal before, but his word. "Remember therein also, how the Duke of Lancaster privily contrived all villainy to set them all together by the ears, and to make the nobility to envy the king, and mislike him and his government; by which means he made his own son king, which was Henry Bolingbroke. "Remember, also, how the Duke of Lancaster asked a wise man whether himself should ever be king, and he told him no, but his son should be a king: and when he had told him, he hanged him up for his labour, because he should not bruit abroad, or speak thereof to others. This was a policy in the commonwealth's opinion, but I say it was a villain's part, and a Judas' kiss, to hang the man for telling him the truth. Beware, oy this example, of noblemen and their fair words, and say little to them, lest they do the like to thee for thy good will."* From Forman's account of this play, it will be seen that it embraces the earlier period of Richard II., containing the insurrection of Jack Straw. It seems very doubtful whether it includes the close of the reign. We have a talk for "policy" about the Duke of Lancaster's (Gaunt's) machinations; but nothing about Henry Bolingbroke. Were there two plays of Richard II., of which we know nothing the obsolete play of the deposition, which Merrick caused to be acted in 1601, and the play containing Jack Straw, which Forman noted in 1611? SCENES. Of the architectural drawings by Mr. Poynter, the room in the Palace, Act I., is imaginary, but it presents an example of the architectural style of the period. The interior is represented as tapestried, with the well-known cognizances of Richard II., the sun and the white hart. The garden at Langley, Act III., and the street leading to the Tower, Act V., are also imaginary. The exterior of Westminster-hall, Act IV., requires a particular description. New Palace Yard dates from the building of Westminster-hall by William Rufus, and was so called in contradistinction to the court of the original palace of Edward the Confessor, or Old Palace Yard. Hollar has left a view of New Palace Yard, dated 1647. It was at that time surrounded by houses, but many of its earlier features were preserved, and the engraving affords a key to explain several authentic particulars as to its condition two centuries and a half earlier, of which a restoration is here attempted. In the reign of Richard II., New Palace Yard appears to have been inclosed to the north and west, and partly to the south, by a stone wall, the remainder of its circumference being occupied by the palace buildings. The gateway represented by Hollar, as the west side, was built by Richard III., but it probably occupied the place of an older gateway, which is, therefore, shewn in the restoration. The tower on the north side was erected in the reign of Edward I., with the proceeds of a fine laid upon Sir Ralph Hengham, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, for altering a record. It appears in Hollar's engraving in a very mutilated state, with modern quoin stones; but as it bears evident marks of having been altered in the fourteenth century, it is restored to what may reasonably be supposed its appearance at that period. In this tower a clock was afterwards placed, and it was known as "the Clock Tower" down to its demolition, about 1715. On the same side was an opening into a lane leading to the water, recently represented by the passage into Bridge-street; and the memory of the Clock Tower, and its origin, was preserved in the sun dial on the north side of New Palace Yard, and its motto "Discite justitiam moniti." The gateway at the south-west angle led to Old Palace Yard, by St. Margaret's-lane. A mass of useful and interesting information on the subject of the ancient palace, will be found in "Smith's Antiquities of Westminster." Westminster-hall was erected by Richard, and finished in 1399. The first business of the meeting of Parliament in the edifice which the king had caused to be built out of his exactions of the wealth of his subjects, was to proceed to his deposition. The compositions by Mr. Buss, namely, the lists at Coventry, Act I.; the meeting of Richard and Bolingbroke, Act III.; and the entry of Bolingbroke and Richard into London, Act V., are designed with a strict adherence to the costume of the period. New Particulars regarding the works of Shakspeare: 1836. COSTUME. For the male costume of this play we are overwhelmed with authorities. Not only do we possess elaborately-executed portraits and monumental effigies of Richard, and the greater number of the other historical personages, but the time is particularly rich in illuminated manuscripts, and in anecdotes illustrative of the dress and armour of the people at large. The poems of Chaucer and the chronicles of Froissart are full of information on these points; and in the Harleian Collection of MSS. there is the well known and invaluable Metrical History of the deposition of Richard II., by a gentleman of the household of Charles the VI. of France, and who attended Richard during the whole of the period he describes.* The MS. is liberally illustrated by miniatures exhibiting all the principal scenes of that eventful story, and containing portraits, of the dress at least, of Richard II., Bolingbroke, the Earls of Northumberland, Westmoreland, Exeter, Salisbury, the Bishop of Carlisle, &c. &c. This circumstance is the more fortunate, as, although we possess numberless illuminated copies of Froissart, all that have come under our notice have been executed as late, at least, as the commence. ment of the reign of our Henry VI., and, consequently, present us with the dress and armour of another century. We take this opportunity of impressing this fact upon the minds of our readers, by at once referring them to the cuts in this play, taken from an illuminated copy of Froissart, and representing the quarrel and combat between the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk, and Richard II. surrendering his crown to Bolingbroke, by comparison of which, with those from the Metrical History, they will perceive the difference in the fashions of the times, and avoid confounding the former with those which are given as undoubted authorities for the costume of this play. The foppery of dress prevailing during the reign of Richard II. is the universal theme of satire and reprobation amongst the poets and historians of the day; and York, in the first Scene of the second Act of this play, speaks with perfect truth of our "apish nation" limping in base imitation after the "fashions in proud Italy," or wherever "the world thrusts forth a vanity;" a passage which Dr. Johnson has presumed, of course, to be a mistake of Shakspere, or, rather, a wilful anachronism of the man who gave "to all nations the customs of England, and to all ages the manners of his own!" Richard himself was (as the Rev. Mr. Webb has remarked in his description of the Metrical History aforesaid Archæologia, vol. xx.) the greatest fop of his day. He had a coat estimated at thirty thousand marks, the value of which must chiefly have arisen from the quantity of precious stones with which it was embroidered, such being one of the many extravagant fashions of the time. Those of working letters and mottoes on the dresses, and cutting the edges of the mantles, hoods, &c. into the shape of leaves and other devices, will be seen by referring to the portrait of Richard in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster, and the illuminations of the Metrical History. Bolingbroke, in the miniatures of that work, is represented in mourning for his father. When he entered London with the captive Richard in his train, he was dressed, according to Froissart, in a short jack, or jacket, of cloth of gold, “a la fachon d'Almayne." Of John of Gaunt we are told that he wore his garments "not wide," and yet they became him "full well." In the Cotton MS., marked D 6, he is represented granting the claims at the coronation of Richard II., as Lord High Steward of England. He is attired in a long party-coloured robe, one half white, the other blue, such being the family colours of the House of Lancaster. White and red were, however, assumed by Richard II. as his livery colours, and, as such, worn by the courtiers and citizens on state occasions. The sleeves of John of Gaunt's robe, it will be observed, are tight, and reach to the wrist, after the old fashion of Edward the III.'s time: but bearing out the words of the old poet before quoted, who praises him for not giving way to the extravagances of his nephew's court; Chaucer, the Monk of Evesham, and the author of an anonymous work, cited by Camden, and called "the Eulogium," all complain of the large, long, and wide sleeves, reaching almost to the feet, which even the servants wore in imitation of their masters. The shoes had excessively long pikes, sometimes crooked upwards, and then called crackowes * See Historical Illustrations to Act III. The Monk of Evesham describes him as extravagantly splendid in his entertainments and dress. |