THERE always has been-there always will be the greatest interest in determining accurately what are Shakespeare's writings, and what are not. Under cover of that mighty name much rubbish has for generations been palmed off on uncritical readers as valuable ; and some intrinsically beautiful writing has been assigned to him, to the injury of the reputation of its real author. The latter wrong has been remedied in two exceedingly ingenious and altogether able papers, by Messrs. Hickson and Spedding, and Fletcher's claim to his share of the Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. has been completely vindicated and accurately assigned. The former wrong has also been in part set right by the present writer, and the portions due to Shakespeare's creation in The Taming of the Shrew, Timon of Athens, and Pericles, ascertained. with exactness. Fortunately, in these instances the metal can be separated from the dross, and its beauty enjoyed without diminution from alloy. problems of a similar nature that remain unsolved, there is none equal in interest and importance to that on which the present paper is written; and as the evidence is of a nature which can in great part be expounded popularly, I have abstracted from my larger work on the subject as much as is necessary, I hope, to produce conviction. Up to the present time three distinct theories have been propounded. Firstly, Malone's, to the effect that the imperfect copies of the second and third of the three plays, which we call collectively Henry VI., published under the names of The Contention of the Houses of York and Lancaster, and The True Tragedy of the Duke of York, were written by Marlowe, Greene, and Peele, and that Shakespeare, on this foundation, built

Of the

that Shakespeare wrote both the imperfect and the completed plays. Thirdly, Mr. Grant White's, that Shakespeare, Greene, Marlow, and perhaps Peele, wrote the imperfect plays in conjunction, and that Shakespeare in the perfect plays reclaimed and added to his own work, rejecting that of his coadjutors. I shall not here attempt any refutation of these remarkable and imaginative theories, as I hope to give convincing evidence of the truth of my own. I shall merely premise that there is no evidence whatever for Shakespeare's having any share in either the early or late editions, except the solitary fact that the editors of the first folio included Hen. VI. in their collection; and the value of their evidence is shown by their rejecting Pericles and The Two Noble Kinsmen, which unquestionably were in the greater part written by Shakespeare. We may, therefore, start with perfectly unprejudiced minds in determining the question in hand as to the second and third of the three plays. The first, which we know only from the folio editions, has been rejected by nearly every editor of authority; how far rightly we shall see presently.

I shall begin, then, in the natural course, by examining the external evidences; for there is some evidence which has been strangely overlooked by preceding critics.

External Evidences.

The first of these concerns the history of the stage at the date at which these plays were produced. Were they connected with any particular companies of players? and can we trace them from their original actors into the hands of the king's company in 1623, when the first folio was published? I

plays, which I will call, from the name given them in the edition of 1600, The Whole Contention, when spoken of jointly, keeping the names of The Contention and The True Tragedy for their separate indication. For the plays in the folio I shall use the usual abbreviations 1 Hen. VI., 2 Hen. VI., 3 Hen. VI.

Now as to the date of The Whole Contention it cannot well be later than 1592. The Contention must be as early as that, as it is indicated in a well-known passage in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, in which a line from it is quoted.

We

shall want to refer to this passage again, and I therefore give it here. After addressing Marlow and "young Juvenal" (either Lodge or Nash), and advising their reformation, Greene apostrophizes Peele thus: "And thou no less deserving than the other two, in some things rarer, in nothing inferior; driven as myself to extreme shifts; a little have I to say to thee; and were it not an idolatrous oath, I would swear by sweet St. George, thou art unworthy a better pass, sith thou dependest on so mean a stay. Base-minded men, all three of you, if by my miseries ye be not warned; for unto none of you like me sought these burs to cleave; those puppets, I mean, that speak from our mouths, those antics garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they have all been beholding; is it not like that you to whom they all have been beholding, shall (were ye in that case that I am now) be both at once of them forsaken ? Yes, trust them not, for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his 'tiger's1 heart wrapt in a player's hide,' supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country. O that I might entreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses; and let these apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired 1 Cf. 3 Hen. VI., Act i. Sc. 4.

inventions." This was written in 1592, the year of Greene's death, which gives a posterior limit of date for The True Tragedy.

Now, from 1592 onwards, we have some evidence as to the connection of Greene, Peele, and Marlow with various companies of players; and as these are the only writers, except Shakespeare, to whom we can assign the authorship of Henry VI. (all critics admit this), I will give an abstract of what we know. In 1592 Greene's play of Friar Bacon was acted (as were also his Orlando Furioso, and The Looking-Glass for London written in conjunction with Lodge) by Lord Strange's company. In 1594 this play was printed as played by Her Majesty's players. There is nothing to connect him with other companies, unless George a Greene be his production. This was acted by Lord Sussex's men in 1593. Peele's work, The Old Wife's Tale, and 2Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes, were also performed by performed by the Queen's company, and published at the respective dates of 1595 and 1599. They may possibly have been, like Greene's, acted at some time by Lord Strange's men. That is all we know as to these authors. Marlow's Tamberlane, Massacre of Paris, and Jew of Malta, were all acted by Lord Strange's company in 1592-3; Edward II. by the Earl of Pembroke's in 1593; and Tamberlane, The Jew of Malta, and Faustus, by the Admiral's, or the Lord Chamberlain's, or both together, in 1594. Putting these results side by side, we see Marlow was acted in three successive years by different companies: Lord Strange's in 1592, Earl of Pembroke's in 1593, and either the Admiral's or Chamberlain's in 1594. He probably kept the copyright of his works in his own possession. Greene did so in his earlier career, and probably sold some of his copyrights to the

2 But this play is not Peele's; Dyce is mistaken on this point.

3 They belonged ultimately some to the Admiral's, some to the Chamberlain's company the latter were acquired probably in

1600.

THERE always has been-there always will be the greatest interest in determining accurately what are Shakespeare's writings, and what are not. Under cover of that mighty name much rubbish has for generations been palmed off on uncritical readers as valuable; and some intrinsically beautiful writing has been assigned to him, to the injury of the reputation of its real author. The latter wrong has been remedied in two exceedingly ingenious and altogether able papers, by Messrs. Hickson and Spedding, and Fletcher's claim to his share of the Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. has been completely vindicated and accurately assigned. The former wrong has also been in part set right by the present writer, and the portions due to Shakespeare's creation in The Taming of the Shrew, Timon of Athens, and Pericles, ascertained. with exactness. Fortunately, in these instances the metal can be separated from the dross, and its beauty enjoyed without diminution from alloy. Of the problems of a similar nature that remain unsolved, there is none equal in interest and importance to that on which the present paper is written; and as the evidence is of a nature which can in great part be expounded popularly, I have abstracted from my larger work on the subject as much as is necessary, I hope, to produce conviction. Up to the present time three distinct theories have been propounded. Firstly, Malone's, to the effect that the imperfect copies of the second and third of the three plays, which we call collectively Henry VI., published under the names of The Contention of the Houses of York and Lancaster, and The True Tragedy of the Duke of York, were written by Marlowe, Greene, and Peele, and that Shakespeare, on this foundation, built

that Shakespeare wrote both the imperfect and the completed plays. Thirdly, Mr. Grant White's, that Shakespeare, Greene, Marlow, and perhaps Peele, wrote the imperfect plays in conjunction, and that Shakespeare in the perfect plays reclaimed and added to his own work, rejecting that of his coadjutors. I shall not here attempt any refutation of these remarkable and imaginative theories, as I hope to give convincing evidence of the truth of my own. I shall merely premise that there is no evidence whatever for Shakespeare's having any share in either the early or late editions, except the solitary fact that the editors of the first folio included Hen. VI. in their collection; and the value of their evidence is shown by their rejecting Pericles and The Two Noble Kinsmen, which unquestionably were in the greater part written by Shakespeare. We may, therefore, start with perfectly unprejudiced minds in determining the question in hand as to the second and third of the three plays. The first, which we know only from the folio editions, has been rejected by nearly every editor of authority; how far rightly we shall see presently.

I shall begin, then, in the natural course, by examining the external evidences; for there is some evidence which has been strangely overlooked by preceding critics.

External Evidences.

The first of these concerns the history of the stage at the date at which these plays were produced. Were they connected with any particular companies of players? and can we trace them from their original actors into the hands of the king's company in 1623, when the first folio was published? I

plays, which I will call, from the name given them in the edition of 1600, The Whole Contention, when spoken of jointly, keeping the names of The Contention and The True Tragedy for their separate indication. For the plays in the folio I shall use the usual abbreviations 1 Hen. VI., 2 Hen. VI., 3 Hen. VI.

Now as to the date of The Whole Contention it cannot well be later than 1592. The Contention must be as early as that, as it is indicated in a well-known passage in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, in which a line from it is quoted. We shall want to refer to this passage again, and I therefore give it here. After addressing Marlow and "young Juvenal" (either Lodge or Nash), and advising their reformation, Greene apostrophizes Peele thus: "And thou no less deserving than the other two, in some things rarer, in nothing inferior; driven as myself to extreme shifts; a little have I to say to thee; and were it not an idolatrous oath, I would swear by sweet St. George, thou art unworthy a better pass, sith thou dependest on so mean a stay. Base-minded men, all three of you, if by my miseries ye be not warned; for unto none of you like me sought these burs to cleave; those puppets, I mean, that speak from our mouths, those antics garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they have all been beholding; is it not like that you to whom they all have been beholding, shall (were ye in that case that I am now) be both at once of them forsaken ? Yes, trust them not, for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his tiger's1 heart wrapt in a player's hide,' supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country. O that I might entreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses; and let these apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired 1 Cf. 3 Hen. VI., Act i. Sc. 4.

inventions." This was written in 1592, the year of Greene's death, which gives a posterior limit of date for The True Tragedy.

Now, from 1592 onwards, we have some evidence as to the connection of Greene, Peele, and Marlow with various companies of players; and as these are the only writers, except Shakespeare, to whom we can assign the authorship of Henry VI. (all critics admit this), I will give an abstract of what we know. In 1592 Greene's play of Friar Bacon was acted (as were also his Orlando Furioso, and The Looking-Glass for London written in conjunction with Lodge) by Lord Strange's company. In 1594 this play was printed as played by Her Majesty's players. There is nothing to connect him with other companies, unless George a Greene be his production. This was acted by Lord Sussex's men in 1593. Peele's work, The Old Wife's Tale, and 2Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes, were also performed by the Queen's company, and published at the respective dates of 1595 and 1599. They may possibly have been, like Greene's, acted at some time by Lord Strange's men. That is all we know as to these authors. Marlow's Tamberlane, Massacre of Paris, and Jew of Malta, were all acted by Lord Strange's company in 1592-3; Edward II. by the Earl of Pembroke's in 1593; and Tamberlane, The Jew of Malta, and Faustus, by the Admiral's, or the Lord Chamberlain's, or both together, in 1594. Putting these results side by side, we see Marlow was acted in three successive years by different companies: Lord Strange's in 1592, Earl of Pembroke's in 1593, and either the Admiral's or Chamberlain's in 1594. He probably kept the copyright of his works in his own possession.3 Greene

did so in his earlier career, and probably sold some of his copyrights to the

2 But this play is not Peele's; Dyce is mistaken on this point.

3 They belonged ultimately some to the Admiral's, some to the Chamberlain's company the latter were acquired probably in 1600.

Queen's company just before his death. Peele, perhaps, imitated his two rival authors, though it is of little importance to our present subject whether he did or not.

I may mention here that Mr. Halliwell has proved that Lord Strange's company were in 1594 incorporated with the Lord Chamberlain's. I inferred the same result from very different evidence to his—namely, from the title pages of these plays. I state this, not to claim any credit (that is due entirely to Mr. Halliwell), but to point out how these separate investigations confirm each other. In the same way my inference from internal evidence in

Shakespeare's Sonnets Sonnets (Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1875), to the effect that Shakespeare must have acted in 1594, coincided with Mr. Halliwell's positive evidence to that effect, which reached me a month after my article was in type, finally corrected (10th November, 1874). To return.

How do these dates affect the question of the authorship of The Whole Contention? Thus. The True Tragedy was in the possession of Lord Pembroke's players in 1595, as Marlow's Edward II. was in 1593. As it was written in 1592, Marlow may or may not have been concerned, either alone, or with help, in writing it for Pembroke's company. But the evidence, such as it is, points to Marlow as one author.

This

is confirmed by the fact that Titus Andronicus was in the possession of the Earl of Sussex's men in 1593 when Greene and Marlow were connected with that company, and in 1594 it also was acted by the Lord Admiral's company in conjunction with others. Our evidence from this source, then, simply goes to exclude Shakespeare from any authorship of The Whole Contention, as he was never in connection with any but the Chamberlain's (aftercompany wards the King's, 1603), and perhaps Lord Strange's; and even in the title page of The Whole Contention in 1600 only the Earl of Pembroke's servants, and not the Chamberlain's, are men

latter company having the play is in the statement (by T. Pavier)' in the 1619 edition that it was written by William Shakespeare. This assertion was made three years after Shakespeare's death, and we shall presently see its value.

With regard to 1 Hen. VI. the evidence is very different. It was acted by Lord Strange's company in 1592, but must have passed to the Chamberlain's servants before 1599, the almost certain date of 1 Hen. V. For in the epilogue to that play, we find :

"The world's best garden he achieved, And of it left his son imperial lord. Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crowned king

Of France and England, did this king succeed :

Whose state so many had the managing, That they lost France and made his England bleed,

Which oft our stage hath shown, and for their sake,

In your fair minds let this acceptance take."

This play, then, unlike The Whole Contention, probably did not pass through the hands of the Earl of Sussex's company or the Earl of Pembroke's, but passed along with Lord Strange's company to the Lord Chamberlain's. Anyhow, they had it in Shakespeare's lifetime, and that is all we care about.

This evidence is not much yet, but it indicates this much, that Shakespeare had probably no hand in the original

1 Mr. Halliwell has pointed out that the edition of 1619 of The Whole Contention is intermediate in character between the 1600 editions of the separate plays and the folio of 1623. He thinks this due to a partial revision by Shakespeare between these parts. I think it due to Pavier's having got a few more shorthand notes from the theatre, and used them to correct his stolen copy. Exactly the same phenomenon is observable in the editions of Hamlet (and in a less degree of Othello), where the second quarto is intermediate between the imperfect sketch and the folio, though much nearer the latter than in this case. Here, again, some modern editors I think quite wrongly prefer the quartos to the folios. The fact also that in the assignment of these plays to Pavier from Millington (1602), they are called the first and second parts of Henry VI. shows that they were not continuations of 1 Hen. VI., which is called the third part of Henry VI. in Blount and Jaggard's entry of 1623. Query: does this show