CURSE RA PUT Rie) Ra
eH leit een Met Ie feat MRT ot br) pe a
PN ramAlRMAM MEN ROO a A AH
aude airoata ta ty hp tela
te ieee tata
ees Winn
i
eve he) 4 a
rata an ene
iy! 4 Nines Poke ‘
v Nia Leis
RSH Ha Ae ay SiMe
re a ica beg
A
pelts
enh
Us See ee Yat ib ay wat as er nye Gl i) Py ae ital
VARA Sa Ni
BAA KCeS A
4 ( Pelee Wa" if esi ; rai
Ce Pee ih Tats waits
4
5 Vi
" i say Hate
a fay ein iy fF iva f
4.8 410 CROMER eM BY
wy rahe ley Ua a
Cia 45) ‘itd »
eka ys
Nh ae
te ;
si . yok oe ss i nA \
Agree ey
Pe RAR ROR NTE eae
LWA RMS Db He eae Pio bees ‘ Hit
Hatch hiaeh a iste NAN eb sieca
iat mn < eens gas ihe)
js!
ru
mey pit are
AAR
Me ENT is
i eWay i Ss
7 vaa'g Mad « ‘
RL iene) ssa
AD iy Ree RRL es ay
AN a
' ei saete ata Neg 2 3) int
nt me Lee ee ee ek i
vdacis nea seen ae ‘ oe oh Gia Ss
han uy oe ema a fhe ‘ } " wen fog
yal ai , lh thy
pei Siang aN oy a it i, Mtg ai ia i ane! a oo
4 Wi pata ite |
' Ait fi Py ; nhs Hl oe Ws K
wi ot ay ih eid uh eh ie hi peirel ee ‘ ya oe * tis i ' 2 iF ee
; i SCRUM a0 1 Ke Bt ay H Fedak ‘
Ot v Cah | Fe as} Mt
ot)
ff tin
eM My Ai oy 5)
HER
ny)
| a iis
Mit) fk tatins i064
' Y
nea
it fe tit
We fe ae
Mi
i “ih 4 Wty it be
H a at Reh
HS A?
Wa? cA gid SOMONE G hat op
a Send cae 4
Di ae
oy
Weiteg an) iy key me
writ i oe Hl Rha ats ;
i
i
i
4 i
ah
ee if Me fy - ‘ fd
He MSA Maen aiea
! i ‘tte ye es a at a
DERG yy if bay fi igen eh i a 1 in ies Hae pte
nage my Patt v Kaci vrata it shin AES te i vf ay ot ia
i m ene iM Ba wie! a) at Hi nd . a ene: eee pee
hath wid
aM
st 4\ fants ; Raed ft avon} Via +
nid i
MA ii jl ie Meike if te ih
d fi PUES ih Hatin
H i Wien 34
ae
ee
see ity es
J jl Aas oF
Lo A
an
{ ita ine se ea
1 : pete
Hs Tin f f HA Hy
i i Pon pan phar
Ph 1 DUT A Kd
hen ay}
Bas iy ADE ;
hogan iy
a 054
asin
a} 4 is
oe hy | i ay
jet Hr Hi A ot dts Hi te ae vit
ae
iaagte et i tt
Aa wee ta I
TH ak oe aT AAs He Wes sign
i ie fey pele A trae a ag:
Hy a ae hi it ty
Len) that ofa lest { Rien
Ht Mf wes fa ae ae Ay
rin ee iV rac ah as ie
: es. ; vt iv ota
Heat Kit i ia Nisei Ea oe if a! ite ;
me et hat ui wh sid a aaihy bias ;
Set Ura ie Wi ni ) aH sf Ws Henin ; .
i fy ah igus we Af Aired ites bi Hy i var sf ie ; ae i se ‘ a
wipes i ie es ANSE RTA IR an i
frit illite Hh) We Ant F : oH y i}
Go a ea
ays mi i ett 2 iti
in dit Der me hn
f 4 vit 4
ei
ES Ree!
ity aot Y at
une * ai Me oe a a A
Wh al Mn Pag uel aa; hy) AaNetsh ty }
Ue Wetita hte A ir? Haat inet stats a ‘
tpi ‘ayn lai eh Pie ea Bad i a esA AY } cite Asie
Ae Ri a eel Wik 5 ti ar i a ogik 4 Sarat a “aah oe aa ie
iam {i ta wy “qi , We i! ye ‘ iI PURURNVhUee PLEVEN ELI
‘ ‘ ieeyt “in a
nih Vine I { is diy Me
Beatty hie Wh w
aN iets ey
sft?
DY Niet Late ‘wei an Cah
Bi bat TO 4 Mend ys
ie rt ot biti: iM HH
i
Van tcAily
Pa Sistah A Asa aie
i HN Lae cnelon
Pees
A ft
ia tgp
nh aay Pee ae tr hats atti chard
AH
*
* ti
" ut a Sy wet rea ihe pier Rory) pant uh
UR gh Nok ries Hed Reet hhhg
5 Sal das it 5 Aa are a ae are Hy my fh AS a
We Fer, O Fi DMRS. Hi pupuet iets Ail Mie
d Pa ee hae i Shir ay oa hie 4 ety niet pits
i ‘al ta (ay oP a ad
i i
a4 shea wipe ain
4 te
Bay eis uy et an
a
te Wrath its eg
Wate’ 43038 as
Withsqeaee's
matt tie
4 4\ it af
i ian ae sen HEAL eh | (a bee ‘it Aa ie {
4 ea : i uH ffla tata gt 4 Brisk MI bate tH Ht ht ney a ait ne a i
a Ny i wee WAS (iy ae Aa Nilcstainteiat AS eee ine Mal ; 4 ealyg Ae HN Ait ier his uy it nae i Pi
\ ; : WH Wiry } r Bet ee iets ‘ DE es Bild i
? Pen ii) aby i } iN Ng hits ryt» iit ae ai ee x ryat uth i" . iehatiay ay Ke nt Pena sve in : it ’ iy
+1 ii Fa Ay sea ‘
ay ia
Wa aot agian ia
fi} eat ae ea Were ei
CrURIB TAT Hf Sn pea) Sato ny ets gs
fag!
‘
hk heen i a ae hii vin
" oy Santeria Ale cir (ih easiest We
an HEA sale Apa iepaeens nial a ierse
i afk ; "
eligi ese i ai aie ati
ee vb ia! fa iy
1% tah
1;
SSM VELA Ra ey
ete sta! fins hot
Sa 5 aa ais i Say ow
se Mea iets
ha a HURON BURL Ty ud rat din ribs ‘
papa dees rh Rida ht i ie 4 Fath ripalng tat HFM ve site
ME aeoh dU NaS GEN, aoe sige stetndete gta
son taste lee i n , aA die eitaies ie)
oP Ar nie tripe mit preaitad} PLR In pet esta tai ane
hab a hal hatar Retry, iu aia at vie +s) ai fan
hy ‘be bea lB 9 ™ ees orate AO leita
\ + Voip Ltvlieg aie Sats Apa eR
Nia Ue i oes Mito Mane
CHT Oh ea 4
fh ine
‘i
a ae ai
Arie
iN aa ita ie Rane oa
a
Ah : ae Tai i¥ aH nae moe aay oat
Heaths mal}
a frit ik ty ih han ay
herent a Wai sit Ar aa il ant Nit he shai
Lene Wh Rte I ‘ pened weal t ripe wt ti Ay WEIL rae f weed aes ara eaeceah fh ve 4 ‘tet efi
ns ‘xii Ay ma Rett eel Vyas Pome eae een Ha Weve PO hi UM aire aneeat Hi ni et ths
{ De aS A ata vy. ye TERMI Ee ie shit thie: m4 teal itakantayicyaes 4 taal pati 1
SHE ANG aah i EEA eree
uy Wp yies Ly}
ntl anea Aisa yy Un
PCH ksy it 4 arias aakeetesen lagitseats
shea ia vy (oh wipes! a
iusk BS EA be af “it al Ea oe wt fants ai net
Gene sisisnhonisicnegs ae iat Raa htt !
halts ‘ +i
SH Tahal rat : ie Bf
nl
diene, : yea
BN ses, Agta eedsnsierstalorag hatte sat ey Hata
seh SPURL PU LOee Ri aAy patie 1) Ly
Sissi eee Thea na yt tea iter a\e
ahi lhe Ht HWW tT PEA MT A Gales
RIM a 40 2708 | ost ih HID Wn 5h edt pr GaP nbs
mM es aH hy (hens . na CH RSNeCaLeL Aut anti Wegner ig Hates
HOPUTAL SER Re Oey ta Pe ons HER eas Ae NT ab raat iba a PARLEY Taner PySoy
DML rCe Ue EY hier bit ah eh Ware Aetna aEA Maloun ke iia tea te te
sh STE, Oates a4 sis anita BV W HT ALG D ait Wel avend alba arr aie th
. oF bell) (PMP ae hui lew Wh sieale) Mena, Abert sUsn siseon nel
Hatha st beaaye CRen in ai " koa ap iy she oe Ya Vara cecautneataReey (ih ge Aa
Yih Wits vee ae ai tories oe Via sie aay ve Mara! DIYecneLer el cr erat Porras hake ioe
-) hw f Wiis PEW SRK at mek 8 A OMS Saas “Wshoteay este ainsi bi
enh d ra wah FE ° a RA ot WLOS A f "hob POs Aone sg ae aa aan wan *
GTS ORU RWG aie cone ere Daeg shyt SHAPE otto hin waatarlchsd at
Nf WR ata it We i Va Noa Aires ae amie vamgnn Berean) RGN tee, aati’:
SEPP A PRD RT CA LT ei ap ‘4 sled fretted eT Wa heh darn aa " het Laval ats ves th api oth h *
LEA WA Pathan eh enduele Veh ding Oe hy ry tone id 4 Derrua a aiieesaehieh aH Aa tf os HMR
WEDS RS Miley hon Noe se paten. as H4 of
i ‘awe i a AER th
EL tes eyit needs
445 Mey anh seks
; itera
be aaa ii iP Esha ld ss ”,
24y , bee in 7
afis PbS wie hire aie tf + MY Y
Lj ' ea
sie
on Mysir®
AMET en th Se Wet
4 te Ahr ¥
sot
Phat i
t Pew
Ves ot ip lin? hat d tend
DATE TP yok
Edt teot yA
a Ri ares 4
ARE 4 ah
nek
Loe DEL Ake of :
PV lois ay ty
ait VL TaN SAR
EN OAR QeBh lesa lta AG
TAR aA seeR abe ASDA :
bet ita ad +i a
fs Hi ed» ote Ye i Mat oS
“ey (font shi hie tine ites
hei,
ease PHBL
eet
Hpk eb ol teant yy
EEA gh Oe aay g Webs eA tie ie
pe ine walt ROM Vohale Pane VAN pCa ingierest 5 qeareainisp to bah ea ne
Luh ak, Sai Ranh eT Deal come mat ny oot Wait ih etyoch, tsk dy Methansite ay een ent (tana rina al CAL ea el ATER ai
es Nem, Bacay SELEY TPR eyo Vaurih AW es +8 009} ak RON At Aieale i oaay vit Nah givin adds eh Velho aR cea sat pibaitey a Piet hn ih arent
TP UM eRe Sc bory ben Me Be Nl Pim abs ut he me y NeW Wee oH Abeta +g ew mic Sha tion cet ey B FUR antares ele ten Bed ate
39 eh in WEA SW adot owt vipat bon oes 6 el) aa Wadtengy a ely. ten aiaibateihe sath eel va nents # i!
ARAN AICIN iC a Mela asec BERT an Rarity te)
sheds Sede LLL SRR RA Bat VAL if es |
St DR RTO WOR eC Tere oie i
beh h yw phn CANORA Mea et]
i Went aoa? BA BUPA en by
(et Dod eget ‘
TAWA
“ ttt oy Wa x ER en eR
Manais ti FR ie oy Wad gist ait sited Yieaaihs ‘i
fi part aie hte Paaean Beate Lah Reg ant
Poet meet ctl et eames VAM et eh alten sae $531 at
ppeeke tall a ad i Medi Tae et
il
Ra Asy eat 44
Leen ALFA Ca Sh
al PH Te Hbigeen cietkea ie ke on a ee
ebay 9G sith uel pertains: isis rhe Went vy Lai?
: eh EAR Pe te | Ne Oy +} ae CSB Bir MGA Maye sali fs hd MULLEN Stes erie
ohh. TVS ice hy ear GoNar get 445% Ws ten a eal, BeCOCKUTLPL Catena hoes eee te ‘y
Mh id VATE Te PM phe ne is ! ae: mie ’ RON oe las zi oe TSA THEA rad OP iy Hane AE ote eas alee
Fleer haa ahem be PRedentLsmiaRdG su hee Dieter Pee en seth el | pute bbe de We ADh Eu Mes aeDPAL MERE TL Pee hy TL pert ges oh hire
ASA SN AGO oH? Ebi oe My arty AN i Ai 4M Gi ain 928 8 Abs Fi rie au Fd atl ia aWE 94 + bebe IPL LPL Pty vi)
Phe Abert lose bin ahve Ting ape eee tT
Wy 1D WELW deny ead te 8
4a ee AWA ay
oh NA TT un eeu yaaa
any WH She EAE
Hyis Vibetey Vern:
h ie nee wayne et thy stecdtete it honb tn asa sriing so A A es a
Met WA ASE ob ahs 3s 104 AP t ae tis Dot erp ae ut SIA WR 4 fe ips Shs ne evil pet ieee:
Tota teen MAUNURCETEC NE: CPE Breas fa 4aiyaly Ash) eae sega) Mav sh and oy stotsa sagie Vigil oy Jk tt MST et eatin mses eal sms ;
er en We ht ben Serie te HAG 4
Varn " my rth ,
He ad Healy Lely HALO LD MORE sieihs eb etyefhgyl an
sant mee
em rit eS Ay MV ett} ey AD
SB eka w iby be Wa trea gee oe Porat: Pr
abe ri pUtes oi Wass Gs we
1 otto yd ame sd 4 ts Gs he ado Piven a rh
*
LSPS A Ore tlageet bbe pe,
PT dete, (eat ey er ait erpey
heheh bithog TAWA aah th otdties oy iy
TCO Beat by VA er aw hes
TANG hele SESE Whe THM ows teetbae Sh Y
ry 495 sae te hier
Tate Aer Ceres &S
2 Welt ¥tve
ue La
eiyihie 4}
MAW vm WALD Mo
me abe Rb ea een yon
PAPACA Ye NP Sb on aM eam asl Lop
AF cL Ruban de Drache: tek On ,
; ; rar ee ry Rds) a ote
4
Hoe
ant
Return this book on or before the ™
Latest Date stamped below.
|
University of Illinois Library
wae.
i é of he
Pe # ‘
ah ae rhe
wf be ly
1 et ? ad boo
yyy B 405K
JUN 2 6 19%
L161—H41
i . 4 i
|
i
i
,
Fa iy a
¥ PRS da
wh A
Le Fh)
Go is
aA
/ t "4
ViNe
aa fon
ir aa et re dy
Be he
ast ne AD . -
1K:
a a
‘ hs sky), of ,
Teer
‘ it ryal
“ee,
Ri (
Ag . .
;
1 *
COMMENTARIES
ON THE
Poe LOR T CAT, PLAYS
OF
SHAKSPEARE.
BY THE RIGHT HON.
THOMAS PEREGRINE COURTENAY.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL.T:
LONDON:
HENRY COLBURN, PUBLISHER,
GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET. —
1840.
HENRY VI.—Parr III.
Tuts play opens with the Yorkists* breaking
into the parliament-house, and each chief boasting
(how inaccurately I have already shown in the case
of York’s children) of his prowess in the battle of
St. Alban’s. At the suggestion of Warwick the
duke takes possession of the regal throne. Henry
enters with his followers,+- to whose vows of revenge
he appeals, but presently retires into “ frowns,
words, and threats.” He then alternately boasts of
the superiority of his title, and acknowledges its
weakness :
* Duke of York, his sons Edward and Richard, Norfolk,
Montagu, Warwick, and others. Among these the only new
character is Montagu, This was John Neville, third son of
Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and younger brother
of Warwick. But he had not, at this time, received his first
title of peerage, and was not created marquis until 1470,
fifteen years later. Nicolas, ii. 434.
+ John, Lord Clifford, and Henry, Earl of Northumber-
land, whose fathers were killed at St. Alban’s; Ralph,
second Earl of Westmoreland; Henry Holland, Duke of
Exeter.
VOL II. B
2 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
“Think’st thou that I will leave my kingly throne,
Wherein my grandsire and my father sat ?
No: first shall war unpeople this my realm,
Ay, and their colours often borne in France,
And now in England to our heart’s great sorrow,
Shall be my winding-sheet.—Why faint you, lords =
My title’s good, and better far than his.”
Yet, in a moment—
‘“‘T know not what.to say; my title’s weak.”
And when he endeavours to satisfy his conscience,
that Henry IV. was lawful king, as the adopted
heir of Richard II., Exeter turns against him, and
gives an opinion in favour of York.
Warwick then summons the soldiers who were
without. York bargains with the king.
‘«‘ Confirm the crown to me, and to mine heirs,
And thou shalt reign in quiet whilst thou liv’st.
K. Hen. 1am content. Richard Plantagenet,
Enjoy the kingdom after my decease.”
Here we have an anticipation of five years. This
compromise was made in 1460, after an interval
full of important events, which I must briefly
relate; though I am aware that not even a play in
three parts could, with any regard either to thea-
trical propriety, or human patience, dramatize
them.
HENRY VI. PART III. 3
After the battle of St. Alban’s the parliament
met,* in which that occurrence was treated as an
affray occasioned by the treason of Somerset, who
had kept back the letters which the complainants
had addressed to the king. York and his friends
were solemnly acquitted of disloyalty.+
Before the next session} the king suffered a
relapse, and York was appointed to open the par-
liament as his lieutenant. He was afterwards ap-
pointed protector, when he gave to Salisbury the
great seal, and to Warwick the government of Ca-
lais. On the recovery of Henry, York relinquished
the protectorate,§ and Salisbury the great seal.
» About two years after the battle, parliament
began to exhibit a feeling of discontent at the am-
bitious practices of York, who, be it nevertheless
observed, had not even now put forward his claim
to the crown: complaints against him came princi-
pally from the lords whose fathers were killed at St.
Alban’s; and Buckingham, on the part of the
peers, besought the king that such conduct as that
of the duke might not go unpunished. ||
* Westm., May 26, 1455. Parl. Hist., i. 396. Rolls, v.
278. Lingard, v.150. Hol., 242.
+ Rolls, 280, 282; Wheth., 369.
t Parl. Hist., 398; Rolls, 284.
§ Feb. 25, 1556, Rolls, 421; Hol., 243.
|| Lingard, 342; but this is all from the Lancastrian
recital. See p. 307. Leland, ii. 496.
BQ
4. COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
York once more swore fealty, and engaged, with
the rest, that all differences should be arbitrated by
the sovereign ; a tacit condemnation of his taking
redress into his own hands at St. Alban’s. In June
1458, the two parties met in and near London, and
Henry pronounced an award,* the principal article
of which appears to have been, that “a chantry
should be erected at the expense of York, Salisbury,
and Warwick, for the souls of the three lords (So-
merset, Clifford, and Northumberland) who were
slain at St. Alban’s. +
This award, however, as might have been ex-
pected, was not effectual in contenting either party,
and preparations appear to have been made through-
out 1459 for a contest, the causes and objects of
which were still, however, not very definite.t{ The
court, we are told, distributed ‘‘white swans,§ the
badge of Prince Edward” (for we hear nothing of
the red and white roses). Salisbury and York were
preparing to unite their forces on the borders of
Wales, when the former was met at Bloreheath|| by
Lord Audley, at the head of a royalist force,
which was defeated or successfully repulsed,** and
Salisbury pursued his march.
* Wheth., 418. + Ibid.
t Ibid., 454; Cont. Croyl., 529.
§ Lingard, 155; but whence? || Sept. 30, 1459.
77 James Touchet, fifth lord.
** Leland, 496 ; Wheth., 456.
HENRY VI. PART III. 5
But a large royal army, under the king in person,
was assembled at Worcester, which approached the
camp of the Yorkists; offers of conciliation were
made to the duke, and rejected. York was now de-
serted by some of his followers, and retired into
Ireland ; his friends and sons being elsewhere dis-
persed.
A parliament met at Coventry,* in which York
and his adherents were attainted by that act of par-
liament which we have already cited. The Duke of
Exeter was now appointed to supersede Warwick
in the command of the fleet, and Somerset to
replace him in the government of Calais; but
Warwick successfully resisted his entrance into
the port. After this act of rebellion, Warwick
jomed York in Dublin,+ and concerted further
measures. The result was the landing of Warwick
in Kent. His army increased as he marched, being
joined even by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Articles were circulated, complaining of the mis-
management of the king’s household, the oppres-
sion of the people by taxes, the murderous designs
entertained against York, Salisbury, and Warwick,
and especially the extreme enmity of Shrewsbury,
Wiltshire, and Beaumont.{ The insurgents marched
* Nov. 20, 1459. Parl. Hist., 401; Rolls, 345.
t W. Wyrc., 478.
¢ James Lingard, 158, from Stow, 407; but where did
6 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
through London, and met the royal army at North-
ampton,* where an action of no long duration, in
which Buckingham, Shrewsbury, and many other
considerable persons were killed, put Warwick in
possession of the king’s person.
A parliament was called at Westminster,{ which
repealed all the acts passed at Coventry against the
Yorkists. To this parliament York repaired, with
a retinue of five hundred horsemen, and then oc-
curred the incident from which, as I apprehend,
Shakspeare took that of the occupation of the chair
of state, in the first scene of this play.||
For the duke entered the parliament-house, and
stood for some time, with his hand upon the throne.
Nobody, however, invited him to ascend ; but, when
he withdrew, he oceupied the royal apartments in
the palace of Westminster. He then delivered to
the chancellor a written claim to the crown, as the
lineal descendant of Lionel, son of Edward III.
The story is thus told by Holinshed ;
*‘He came to the city of London, which he entered
the Friday before the feast of Edward the Confessor,
with a sword borne naked before him, with trumpets
Stow find them? Wiltshire was James Butler, so created.
Beaumont, John, first viscount.
* July 20, 1460. Wheth., 479; Hol., 260.
+ John, eldest son of the famous Talbot.
ft Rolls, v, 373. || Wheth., 484; W. Wyrc., 483.
HENRY VI. PART III. 7
also sounding and accompanied with a great train of
men at arms, and other of his friends and servants. At
his coming to Westminster, he entered the palace; and,
passing forth directly through the great hall, staid not
till he came to the chamber where the king and lords
used to sit in the parliament-time, commonly called the
upper house, or chamber of the peers; and being there
entered, stept up unto the throne royal, and there laying
his hand upon the cloth of state, seemed as if he meant to
take possession of that which was his right, (for he held
his hand so upon that cloth a good pretty while,) and,
after withdrawing his hand, turned his face towards the
people, beholding their pressing together, and marking
what countenance they made. Whilst he then stood
and beheld the people, supposing they rejoiced to see
his presence, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas
Bourchier) came to him, and, after due salutations,
asked him if he would come and see the king, with
which demand he, seeming to take disdain, answered
briefly and in few words, thus: ‘I remember not that I
know any within this realm, but that it beseemeth him
rather to come and see my person, than I go and see his.
... . The duke went to the most principal lodging that
the king had within all his palace, breaking up the locks
and doors, and so lodged himself therein, more like a
king than a duke.’ *
After many objections, and an assertion from
Henry of his right, unaccompanied by the manful
« Hol., 261.
8 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
defiance which Shakspeare puts into his mouth ;
the compromise was proposed and accepted as in
the play. I know not upon what authority Exeter
is selected as foremost in acknowledging the right
of the Duke of York; for he is named by Holin-
shed, among the lords who, with Queen Margaret
at their head, refused to acknowledge the new set-
tlement of the crown, and assembled their forces in
order to defeat it.* And a more ancient authority
tells us, that he absented himself, with Somerset,
Northumberland, and Devon, from the meeting in
which the Yorkists obtained this advantage;+ and
we shall see presently that he fought under the
queen. +
The play, after correctly representing the hostile
protest of the chiefs of the Lancastrian party,
brings forward Edward and Richard, the two sons
of York, lamenting their father’s concession of his
rights during Henry’s life, and calling upon him
to disregard his oath of allegiance to Henry.
Edward urges him boldly to break his oath for
the sake of the crown; Richard argues sophistically
for the unlawfulness of the oath; and York has
* Hol., 268. + W. Wyre., 483.
t It is said (Banks, iii, 290), that he married Anne, the
daughter of York; but as he was divorced from her, (I~
know not when or why), there was probably no close
attachment to her family.
HENRY VI. PART III, 9
just been persuaded, when he is advertised of the
queen’s advance with twenty thousand men, to
besiege him in his castle. This is the first of a
series of imputations, the justice of which I shall
have hereafter to examine, upon the morality of
Richard, afterwards Duke of Gloucester. It is
clear that the present imputation cannot be sus-
tained, as Richard was at this time only eight
years old. Edward, Earl of March, his eldest
brother, was eighteen, and may therefore possibly
have urged his father to hostilities. But there is
no reason to believe that either Edward or his
father contemplated hostilities, before the queen
put herself in warlike array.
In the battle of Wakefield which ensued, York
was defeated, as in the play, and put to death,
though there is some doubt whether he was slain
in the battle or beheaded afterwards.*
For the paper crown there is the authority of
old writers+- as well as of Holinshed :—
«‘Some write (for he had mentioned that York was
* Dec. 30, 1460. Lingard, 164; Hol., 269; W. Wyr-
cester (485) says that he was slain in battle; and so the
Chronicle in Leland, 498; but Wethamstede (489) says,
that he was taken alive. The Croyland Cont., 530, may
be construed either way.
+ W. Wyre., Wheth., and Croyl. Cont. as above; but
according to the first, it was the dead York that was
crowned.
BS
10 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
slain in battle, and his head presented to the queen
upon a pole), that the duke was taken alive, and, m
derision, caused to stand upon a mole-hill, on whose
head they put a garland instead of a crown, which they
had fashioned or made of sedges or bulrushes; and haying
so crowned him with that garland, they kneeled down
before him as the Jews did unto Christ, in scorn, saying
to him, ‘ Hail king without rule, hail king without herit-
age, hail duke and prince without people or possessions.’
And at length, having thus scorned him with these and
divers other the like despiteful words, they struck off
his head, which (as you have heard) they presented to
the queen.”
And this latter is the story in Wethamstede. But
I must say, that in amplifying the reproaches which
the Lancastrians heaped upon their captive, the
poet has not improved upon his original in lan-
guage, while his interpolations are as contrary to
chronology as to good taste.
«What! was it you that would be England’s king?
Was’t you that revell’d in our parliament,
And made a preachment of your high descent ?
_ Where are your mess of sons to back you now?
The wanton Edward and the lusty George,*
And where’s that violent crook-back prodigy,
Dicky, your boy, that with his grumbling voice,
Was wont to cheer his dad in mutinies? .
Or, with the rest, where is your darling Rutland?’
* George was not twelve years old. + Act i., Se, 2:
HENRY VI. PART III. ll
I do not find in Holinshed, or elsewhere, the
foundation of the lines that follow:
“Look, York; I stained this napkin with the blood,
That valiant Clifford with his rapier’s point,
Made issue from the bosom of the boy :
And if thine eyes can water with his death,
I give thee this to dry thy cheek withal.”
There is much more in the same strain, and
York’s reply does not fall short of the provocation;
but enough of this, which I hope is not Shak-
speare’s.
I know not in what sense Mrs. Jameson speaks
of “the celebrated speech” * of York. She says
truly, that the story of the napkin is not historical;
but she goes too far in saying, that the decapita-
tion of York after the battle (which she assumes as
the true version) was “not done by the order of
Margaret.” Surely, the queen was the responsible
commander.
“The Lord Clifford perceiving where the Earl of
Rutland was conveyed out of the field by one of his
father’s chaplains, and (schoolmaster to the same earl),
and overtaking him, stabbed him to the heart with a
dagger as he kneeled afore him. This earl was but a
child at that time, of twelve years of age, when neither
his tender years nor dolorous countenance, while hold-
* Charact., ii. 254.
12 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
ing up both his hands for mercy (for his speech was
gone for fear), could move the cruel heart of the Lord.
Clifford to take pity upon him; so that he was noted of
great infamy for that his unmerciful murder of that
young gentleman.”’*
In the play, the eyes are closed from fear, but
much use is made of the speech in vain supplica-
tions to Clifford, who always answers, according
to the fiction of the play,—
“Thy father slew my father, therefore die.”
This address of Clifford to Rutland is in Hall,+
but not in Holinshed ; a circumstance overlooked
by Malone, to whose theory it is unfavourable, if
we .suppose Shakspeare to have written the old
play, from what it is taken.
Rutland, who is here described as a mere child,
was above seventeen years old, only one year
younger than his brother Edward, and _ several
years older than George and Richard. He had
been associated with his elder brother in the acts
for attainting the Yorkists,t while the younger
brothers were unnoticed. Not only Clifford’s re-
ference to his father’s death by the hand of York,
but all that is pitiful im the story, all that is
* Hol., 269. Wethamstede says particularly, that Rutland
was slain by Clifford.
a ek sae 9 t Rolls, v. 349,
=
HENRY VI. PART III. 13
®
beyond the simple fact that Rutland was slain by
Clifford, appears to me to rest on the insufficient
authority of Hall alone.*
The second act places Edward and Richard
Plantagenet, on “‘a plain near Mortimer’s Cross
in Herefordshire.” I can make nothing of this
first scene. It is true enough, that Edward (not
Richard) was in Gloucestershire, at the time of
the battle of Wakefield, and soon afterwards+- ob-
tained a victory at Mortimer’s Cross over the Earl
of Pembroke.t But here he is made to talk as if
he had been present in the battle of Wakefield,
and to have come away without knowing the fate
of his father! Of this, however, he is soon apprized
by a messenger. And the play describes not any
victory or battle.§ Johnson has remarked,]|| that
Shakspeare has judiciously discriminated between
“the generous tenderness of Edward, and the
savage fortitude of Richard, in their different
reception of their father’s death ;”—
“ Edw. Oh! speak no more for I have heard too much.
Rich. Say how he died, for I will bear it all.”
* Not only the old writers to whom I have referred, but
Fabyan and P. Vergil are silent.
¢ Feb. 2, 1461.
¢ Jasper Tudor, half-brother to Henry VI.
§ Mortimer’s Cross, as the heading of the scene, is notin
the old play. It was probably added by some half-informed
commentator. || Bosw., 405.
14 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
And,
‘« Hdw. Never, oh! never shall I see more joy.
Rich. I cannot weep for all my body’s moisture
Scarce serves to quench my furnace-burning heart.
Richard, I bear thy name, I'll ’venge thy death,
Or die renowned by attempting it.”
The critic is led by the common prejudice to be
very unfair towards Richard. He displays more
energy of character, but there is nothing savage in
his resolution to avenge the death of his father.
However, as the whole is imaginary, I leave it.
The appearance in the heavens of
“Three glorious suns, each one a perfect sun,”
is not a creation of Shakspeare’s imagination, as it
is to be found in Holinshed, who, as well as the
poet, transfers the suns to Edward’s shield.
Warwick and Montagu with their troops, now
join the brothers ; and announce their ill success in
the second battle of St. Alban’s.* Warwick and
Edward did at that time meet and unite their
forces, at Chipping Norton, but the battle was
fought after the meeting at York ; not before it, as
in the play.
The introduction of ‘ Lord George your bro-
ther,” is gratuitous. That prince was seven years
* Feb. 15, 1461. Hol., 272; Wyre., 486-488. The Duke
of Exeter is mentioned as now with the queen.
HENRY YI. PART III. 15
younger than Edward, and thus only twelve years
old at the present time. Edward, too, is made to
ask,
«‘ Where is the Duke of Norfolk, gentle Warwick,
And when came George from Burgundy to England?”
To which the earl answers,
«Some six miles off the duke is with the soldiers,
And for your brother,—he was lately sent
From your kind aunt, Duchess of Burgundy,
With aid of soldiers to this needful war.”
The Duchess of Burgundy was not Edward’s
aunt, nor did she send over Clarence, who, as a
boy, had been sent to Flanders with his brother
Richard, to be out of the way.*
Warwick adds, that the king and his friends are
going to London, to put an end to the settlement
to which he had sworn. He advised that Henry’s
movement should be anticipated : and so it was.
_ But Shakspeare now brings the king and queen
with Clifford, Northumberland, and the Prince of
Wales, “before York.”+- Here they are met by
Edward and the Yorkists, and a long colloquy
ensues. “The new Duke of York reproaches Henry
with perjury. ‘
“‘T was adopted heir by his consent,
Since when his oath is broke; for, as J hear,
* Ritson in Bosw., 410. t Se. 2.
16 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
You, that are king, though he do wear the crown,
Have caused him by new act of parliament,
To blot out me, and put his own son in.”
No parliament had sat, but Henry had by pro-
clamation declared that the agreement for York’s
succession to the crown was void.* And though
there might be no specific article to the effect, +
such a departure from the agreement clearly put
the Yorkists in the right.
In the play, the battle of Towton follows; but
previously to this, the army which had been victo-
rious at St. Alban’s refused to march to London.
Henry announced by proclamation that his assent
to the late compromise had been extorted by vio-
lence; and he gave orders for arresting the young
Duke of York; but Edward, as I have said,
marched with all his friends to that important
place. And now, with the apparent consent of
the people, as well as of the ‘ great council of lords
spiritual and temporal,” Henry was declared to
have forfeited the crown, by breaking the award,
and Edward was placed upon the throne. This
important event occurred early in March, 1461,
between the battles of St. Alban’s (the second) and
Towton; but although it is related by Holinshed,+
it is unnoticed by our poet.
* Lingard, 166; Rolls, 465.
+ See Bosw., 417. PP J272.
HENRY VI. PART III, Wy;
It is true, that the king and queen assembled
( their forces at York; but this was after the battle
of Wakefield, and before that of St. Albans; it
was after he had been acknowledged as king that
Edward marched against them, and gained the
decisive victory of Towton.* It is hardly necessary
to say that the long parley between the two par-
ties, on the eve of the battle, is altogether imaginary ;
but some of the allusions are founded upon the
Chronicles. Prince Edward, who was now about
nine years old, was not knighted at this time, but
after the second battle of St. Albans.+
In the play, the fortune of the day is, at first,
against the Yorkists; and it is said to War-
wick,
‘«« Thy brother’s blood the thirsty earth has drank.’’}
Here is only a slight deviation ; there was an action
at Ferrybridge, where Lord Fitzwalter was sur-
prised by Clifford. In this a natural brother of
Warwick was slain by the Yorkists, as well as
Northumberland and Clifford himself. This fierce
Lancastrian, however, was killed, not by Richard,
but by the Lord Fauconberg.§
* March 29, 1461. Hol., 477; W. Wyre. 489; Croyl.
Cont., 533.
+ Bosw., 415. Anstis, ii. 165. { Bosw., 426.
§ Another Neville; William, brother of Salisbury.
18 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
And it is on Holinshed’s* authority that War-
wick is made to say,
‘“‘ Tl kill my horse, because I will not fly.”
I am sorry that we have not room for the inser-
tion of a part of the soliloquy which Henry is made
to utter in the midst of the battle—
“* Methinks it were a happy life
To be no better than a homely swain.”
The speech is characteristic, and may be read as
an illustrative specimen of Shakspeare’s mode of
amplifying the old plays.
Of the dead Clifford, Warwick says,
—— ‘ Off with the traitor’s head,
And rear it in the place your father’s stands.”
This substitution of heads is from Holinshed,
who, however, does not mention Clifford by name,
but ‘the Earl of Devonshire and three others.”
Warwick proceeds ;— |
‘“* And now to London with triumphant march,
There to be crowned England’s royal king.”
King Edward was crowned on the 29th of June,
1461,++ and then, not on the field of battle, as in
the play, he created his brothers George and
Richard, Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester. Ri-
* Monstrelet, iv. 474.
t+ Hol., 279; W. Wyrc., 490.
HENRY VI. PART III. 19
chard’s objection to his title, as unlucky, is sug-
gested by a remark of Holinshed.*
The third act commences with the taking of
Henry prisoner. We are thus carried over three
years, to 1464. After his defeat at Towton, Henry,
who may be considered as having, for the time,
abdicated the throne, had retired into Scotland
with the queen and prince. According to Scottish
historians, James II. had, two years before, pro-
mised assistance to Henry, in return for the pro-
mised cession of Northumberland and Durham.
The Scottish and Yorkist armies made sundry
demonstrations, but never came to action. Of the
stipulated cessions, only the town of Berwick! was
now given up to James ITT.
From Scotland Margaret went into France,§ to
beg succours from Louis XI., who gave her some
naval and military succours, with which she returned
to Scotland, and thence, with some asistance from
the Scots, she invaded the north of England, and
obtained some slight advantages; but Warwick
soon got the success on his side, and the queen,
* Hol., 211, enumerates Hugh Spencer, who was Ear! of
Gloucester ; Thomas of Woodstock ; Duke Humphrey ; and
lastly, this Richard himself.
t In 1458. Bishop Lesley, p. 29. Tytler, iv. 158; Henry,
ix. 362.
t Rolls, v. 478. § Lesley, 35. Tytler, 194.
20 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
after suffering many personal hardships,* repaired
to the court of the Duke of Burgundy, and thence to
Bar, in Lorraine, where she remained for some time.
Meanwhile Henry made an incursion into England,
was defeated at Hexham, by Warwick’s brother,
Montagu ; he took refuge in Lancashire and West-
moreland, but was betrayed, taken, delivered to
Warwick, and imprisoned in the Tower.{
In the play, he is seized in a park by two keepers ;
there has been some doubt as to the names of his
takers, but it is certain that Sir James Harrington,
and several ‘Talbots, were rewarded by King Edward
for the caption. §
In the midst of these events, Edward had been
in possession of the government, and had held three
parliaments, the first of which|| had declared the
Lancastrian dynasty an usurpation, and amply
retaliated the attainders enacted by the adverse
party.
We have now{l the petition of Lady Grey, for
the restitution of her husband’s lands.
* Including the story of the Robber, which rests on the
authority of Monstrelet, iv. 108; there is much doubt as to
time and place, if the event happened at all. See Henry,
ix. 186; Turner, iii. 259.
t+ May 15, 1463. t June, 1465.
§ Lingard, 181; Rymer, xi. 548.
|i Westminster, Nov. 4,1461. Parl. Hist., 419; Rolls,
463, 476. q Actiii. Sc. 2. —
HENRY VI. PART III. 21
_‘* This lady’s husband, Sir John Grey, was slain ;
"His lands then seiz’d on by the conqueror ;
Her suit is now, to repossess those lands,
That we in justice cannot well deny ;
Because in quarrel of the house of York,
The worthy gentleman did lose his life.”
Malone says that these lines are full of error.
Grey was slain at the second battle of St. Albans,
fighting for Lancaster, and the lands were seized
by Edward himself.*
In the play, Edward’s intention to marry Eliza-
beth is at once announced to his brothers, who
greatly disapprove of it. Holinshed says, that it
was opposed by the old Duchess of York.+- It cer-
tainly is not likely that Richard, who was still a
mere boy, should have made any active opposition.
The marriage, according to Holinshed, was pri-
vate.
“She was a woman of a more formal countenance
than excellent beauty, and yet both of such beauty and
favour, that with her sober demeanour, sweet looks, and
comely smiling (neither too wanton nor too bashful),
besides her pleasant tongue and trim wit, she so allured
and made subject unto her the heart of that great prince,
. that after she had denied him to be his paramour, with
so good manner, and words so well set as better could
* See Malone’s note in Bosw., 454.
+ See Laing (in Henry, xii. 403), from Sir Thomas More.
22 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
not be devised, he resolved with himself to marry her,
not asking counsel of any man ; till they might perceive
it was no booty to advise him of the contrary of this his
concluded purpose. . . But yet the Duchess of York
letted this match as much as in her lay, and when all
would not serve, she caused a precontract to be alleged,
made by him with Lady Elizabeth Lucy, that all doubts
resolved, all things made clear, and all cavillations
ended, privily in a monastery he married the kind Lady
Elizabeth Grey, at Grafton, aforesaid, where he had first
fancied her.’’*
In the play :—
‘“‘ K. Hdw. Her looks do argue her replete with
modesty,
Her words do shew her wit incomparable,
All her perfections challenge sovereignty.
One way or other, she is for a king ;
And she shall be my love or else my queen.
“« Lady Grey. I know I am too mean to be your
queen,
And yet too good to be your concubine.”
Other parts of this wooing, are equally supported
by the Chroniclers.+-
Contemporary historians} give us no circum-
* Hol., 283. t See Bosw. 459.
t Croyl. Cont., 539; Hearne’s MS., 292; Fabyan’s tradi-
tions are a little more particular, but not important, p. 654.
HENRY VI. PART III. 23
stances, simply stating that the marriage was clan-
destine, and without communication with the great
men of the land, to whom, when known, it was
very unacceptable, by reason of the inferior birth of
the lady. Nevertheless, we are told, Elizabeth
Grey was, at Michaelmas. 1461, presented to the
nobles as queen, by Clarence and Warwick.*
Shakspeare closes this scene with the first of the
speeches in which Gloucester laments the deformity
of his body, and disclaiming all the gentler feelings
of humanity, announces the evil tendencies of his
mind ;—
“for I should not deal in her soft laws,
Shet did corrupt frail nature with some bribe,
To shrink mine arm up like a wither’d shrub;
To make an envious mountain on my back,
Where sits deformity to mock my body ;
To shape my legs of an unequal size ;
To disproportion me in every part.”
This description is carried further than in the
original play, and Shakspeare has also enlarged
upon the powers of mischief of which Richard
boasts. But
**T can smile, and murder whilst I smile.”
And
** Can I do this, and cannot get the crown?”
are in both plays.
* W. Wyrc., 500. + Love.
24 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
The scene* now introduces us to the French
court, where Louis XI. receives the supplications
of Margaret for succour against the Yorkists:
‘* Now, therefore, be it known to noble Louis,
That Henry, sole possessor of my love,
Is of a king become a banish’d man,
And fore’d to live in Scotland a forlorn : —
Scotland hath will to help, but cannot help.”’
Louis promises aid, but Warwick arrives, to de-
mand the Lady Bona (described as the sister of
Louis, but really sister of his queen, Charlotte of
Savoy), in marriage for Edward. ‘This had been
announced before by Warwick himself :
‘‘ From whence shall Warwick cut the sea to France,
And ask the Lady Bona for thy queen,
So shalt thou sinew both these lands together ;
And having France thy friend, thou shalt not dread
The scatter’d foe that hopes to rise again.” T
This story of the Lady Bona, and of Warwick’s
taking offence, is in Holinshed;{ but the meeting
. between Margaret and Warwick até this time at
Paris, and its consequences, are Shakspeare’s own.
The embassy of that earl to obtain for his master
* Act iii. Sc.3. + Continued from p. 18.
{ P. 280.
HENRY VI. PART III. 25
the hand of the Lady Bona is assigned to the year
1464, after the battle of Hexham, and he found
Louis not at Paris, but at Tours,* Margaret was
not then in France.
With one exception, however, of doubtful autho-
rity, there is no ground in contemporary historians,
French or English, for Edward’s suit to this Lady
Bona.- It was probably taken from Polydore Ver-
gilt It is remarkable that Hearne’s fragment
repeats and refutes a story which sends Warwick
not to France but to Spain; to seek in marriage,
not Bona of Savoy, but Isabel of Castile. But all
such suits, it is added, were fruitless, because the
princes of Europe had not confidence in the stabi-
lity of Edward’s throne. |
On the arrival of the news of Edward’s marriage,
Shakspeare reconciles Margaret and Warwick, who
now becomes a zealous Lancastrian ; and when
Louis, who now promises succour to Margaret, not
unnaturally asks for some pledge of the loyalty of
the convert, Warwick answers,
* Hol., 283,
+ See Ritson’s note in Bosw. 467 ; and Lingard, 189, who
shows that Warwick was not in France at the time of Ed-
ward’s marriage. ‘The authority which he overlooks is the
»~ Chronicle in Leland, ii. 500. :
t P.513, edit. 1£46, He was probably not even born a
the time.
VOL. II. Cc
26 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
«‘ This shall assure my constant loyalty,
That if our queen and this young prince agree,
I’ll join my eldest daughter and my joy
To him forthwith in holy wedlock bands.”
Margaret’s visit, as we have seen, was earlier,
and the promised aid was actually given. As the
poet has placed this visit too late, so has he placed
another, at which some of the circumstances of the
play did occur, much too soon.
It was in 1470 that Margaret and Warwick did
unite against Edward, and cement their union,
under the mediation of Louis, by the marriage of
their children. Prince Edward was betrothed to
Anne (not eldest, but), second daughter of War-
wick. It does not appear that the French king sent
any succours to the Lancastrians at any period after
the declaration of Edward’s marriage.
In the fourth act there is a glimmering of the
truth, but by no means a clear development. We
have the outbreak of the dislike of the nobles to
Edward’s marriage.* Clarence openly tells his
brother that he has made an enemy of the King of
France, and dishonoured Warwick, and Montagu
regrets the loss of the alliance of France. Some
notable lines follow :—
* The persons present, besides the king, queen, and tho
two princes, are Somerset, Montagu, Pembroke, Stafford,
and Hastings.
HENRY VI. PART III. 27
“* Hast. Why, knows not Montagu, that of itself
England is safe if true within itself ?*
Mon. Yes, but the safer when ’tis back’d with France.
Hast. Tis better using France than trusting France :
Let us be back’d with God and with the seas,
Which he hath given for peace impregnable.
And with their helps only defend ourselves :
In them, and in ourselves, our safety lies.
Cla. For this one speech, Lord Hastings well deserves
To have the heiress of the Lord Hungerford.
K. Edw. Ay, what of that ? it was my will and grant,
And for this once, my will shall stand the law.
Glou. And yet, methinks, your grace has not done well,
To give the heir and daughter of Lord Scales,
Unto the brother of your loving bride,
She better would have fitted me, or Clarence,
But in your bride you bury brotherhood.
Cla. Or else you would not have bestow’d the heir
Of the Lord Bonville on your new wife’s son,
And leave your brothers to go speed elsewhere.
K. Edw. Alas, poor Clarence! is it for a wife
That thou art malcontent? I will provide thee.
Cla. In choosing for yourself, you showed your judg-
ment,
Which, being shallow, you shall give me leave,
To play the brother in mine own behalf,
And to that end, I shortly mind to leave you.”
The passages in which the power of England
* See King John in Bosw., xy. 374.
cz
28 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
to maintain herself without foreign alliances, are
enlarged and strengthened in this play, form those
which are found in “the Contention.” They are
conformable to Shakspeare’s general views, so far
as we can collect them, and to the policy of the
English court at the time of his writing.
The discontent expressed at the favours bestowed
upon the queen's relatives, is warranted by history.
The estrangement of Warwick could not have —
arisen at once, or directly, out of the marriage with
Lady Grey, to whose eldest daughter (afterwards
the wife of Henry VIT.) he stood sponsor.*
I do not know whence Shakspeare took his enu-
meration of alliances. It is true that the son of
Lord Hastings was married to the heiress of Hun-
gerford,+ that the queen’s brother, Anthony Wid-
ville, married the heiress of the last Lord Scales,}
and that her son, Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dor-
set, had the heiress of Bonville.§
The queen herself speaks conformably with her
character :—
*« My lords, before it pleased his Majesty,
To raise my state to title of a queen,
Do me but right, and you must all confess,
* W. Wyre., 505.
+ William, first Lord Hastings, of Ashby; married War-
wick’s sister. Banks, iii. 397.
t Ib., p..631. § Ib., ii. 52,
HENRY VI. PART III. 29
That I am not ignoble of descent,
And meaner than myself has had like fortune.
But as this title honours me and mine,
So your dislikes, to when I would be pleasing,
Do cloud my joys with danger and with sorrow.”
These few lines, which, though there is not much
in them, strike me as decidedly Shakspearian, are
not in the old play. Elizabeth assuredly was not
“
Holinshed copied verbatim Polydore Vergil. t
Walpole observes, that Habington tells us, that
‘the king’s discontents were secretly fomented by
the Duke of Gloucester ;” and he adds, that ‘* when
jealousies are secretly fomented in a court, they
seldom come to the knowledge of an_ historian.” §
But the truth is that Habington || wrote after
Shakspeare. ‘The only cotemporary, the Conti-
nuator of Croyland,{ is silent as to the intrigues of
Gloucester. This Chronicle, after mentioning Cla-
rence's interference on behalf of Burdet,** his sum-
mons before the king, in the presence of the mayor
* I do not know when Isabel Neville died.
+ Hol., 346. The event is not within More’s period,
but he alludes to it, without mentioning Richard, p. 362.
1 Py 537.
§ Hist. doubts, in Works, ii. 118.
|| Biog. Dict., xvii. 5. q Pon
** A gentleman in Clarence’s family, accused of sorcery,
See Lingard, 227.
RICHARD III. 73
and aldermen of London, and his imprisonment,
mentions his being accused in parliament.
*
“No one argued against the duke but the king; no
one replied to the king but the duke. But some persons
were introduced, of whom it was doubted whether they
were accusers or witnesses; for the two functions, in
the same cause, are not compatible. The duke met all
the charges by a denial of the fact ; offering, if he could
be heard, to defend his cause in personal combat. The
members of parliament, thinking that the information
they had heard was sufficient, came to a sentence of
condemnation, which was pronounced by the Duke of
Buckingham, lord high steward of England pro tempore.
The execution of the sentence was for a long time
delayed, until the speaker of the house of commons,
going into the upper house with his companions, made
a fresh request for the accomplishment of the affair;
and consequently, within a few days, the punishment, of
whatever kind it was, was secretly carried into effect in
the Tower of London, in the year 1478.”
The Rolls of Parliament* show that Clarence
was convicted and attainted of high treason ; upon
a long recital of offences, including that which
Lingard thinks was the most essential, the being
preferred to Edward in the Lancastrian settlement
of the crown. But of the petition from the Com-
* vi. 193.
VOL. II. E
74 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
mons for the execution of the sentence, I find
nothing in the Rolls.
The affair is unconquerably mysterious. No
reason is assigned why a parliamentary sentence
should be secretly put into execution.
The second act introduces Edward in his last
illness, having effected an apparent reconciliation
between Rivers and Hastings,* Dorset and Buck-
ingham.
Holinshed+ and Sir Thomas More,} both men-
tion the king’s dying injunctions to his courtiers
to live in amity together; but here is a striking
illustration of the nature of historical speeches.
The same volume contains two versions of the
deathbed oration of King Edward, and there is
scarcely a similarity between the two in a single
sentence. Either of them would have furnished
Shakspeare with the ground of an excellent speech.
Gloucester enters, and adds his asseverations of
good-will towards the queen’s friends; but men-
tions the death of Clarence, whom Edward pro-_
fesses to have reprieved :-—
‘“* But he, poor man, by your first order died,
And that a winged Mercury did bear :
* William Hastings, first Lord Hastings, of Ashby-de-la-
Zouche. The Marquis of Hastings is his representative,
through a female.
+ P. 355. t In Hol., 363.
RICHARD III. 75
Some tardy cripple bore the countermand,
That came too lag to see him buried.”
I know of no authority for these contradictory
orders. For what follows, there is the authority
of Sir 'Thomas More, who adds to the account of
Clarence’s execution—
«Sure it is, that though King Edward were consent-
ing to his death, yet he both did much lament his
unfortunate chance, and repent his sudden execution,
insomuch, that when any person sued to him for the
pardon of malefactors condemned to death, he would
accustomably say, and chiefly speak, O, unfortunate
brother, for whose life not one would make suit /. openly
and apparently meaning that by some of the means of
some of the nobility he was deceived, and brought to
his confusion.”’
When the Stanley of the play solicits pardon
for one of his dependants, who had committed
homicide :—
« K, Edw. Have I a tongue to doom a brother’s death,
And shall that tongue give pardon to a slave?
My brother kill’d no man, his fault was thought,
And yet his punishment was bitter death.
Who sued to me for him? Who, in my wrath,
Kneel’d at my feet and bad me be advis’d?
Who told me, how the poor soul did forsake
The mighty Warwick and did fight for me?
E2
i OO... ma retin
76 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Who told me, in the field at Tewksbury,*
When Oxford had me down, he rescued me,
And said, ‘ Dear brother, live and be a king?’
Who told me, when we both lay in the field,
Frozen almost to death, how he did lap me,
Even in his garments, and did give himself,
All thin and naked to the numb-cold night ?
All this from my remembrance brutish wrath
Sinfully pluck’d, and not a man of you
Had so much grace to put it in my mind.
But when your carters, or your waiting vassals,
Have done a drunken slaughter, and defac’d
The precious image of our dear Redeemer ;
You straight are on your knees for pardon, pardon;
And I, unjustly too, must grant it you.
But for my brother not a man would speak,
Nor I, ungracious, spake unto myself,
For him poor soul. The proudest of you all,
Have been beholden to him in his life;
Yet none of you would once plead for his life.
O God! I fear thy justice will take hold
Of me, and mine, and you, and yours, for this.
Come, Hastings, help me to my closet.
Poor Clarence!”
Edward dies, and much time is now taken up
in the lamentations of his widow, his mother, and
the two children of Clarence. The old Duchess of
York, who did in fact live for some years after the
* I do not know where Shakspeare found this incident.
+ April 9, 1483.
RICHARD III. 77
accession of Henry VII., joins with the rest in im-
puting faults of all sorts to her son Richard ; and
he appears in these scenes as a hypocrite and a
scoffer. They call for no further observations.
It is now proposed by Buckingham, that the
young prince, Edward, should be brought from
Ludlow, where he held his court as Prince of
Wales, in order to be crowned ; and that he should
come “ with some little train” only.
“ Rivers, Why with some little train, my lord of Buck-
ingham ?
Buck. Marry, my lord, lest by a multitude
The new-heal’d wound of malice should break out,
Which would be so much the more dangerous,
By how much the estate is yet ungovern’d.
Where every horse bears his commanding rein,
And may direct his course as please himself,
As well the fear of harm, as harm apparent,
In my opinion, ought to be prevented.
Glou. I hope the king made peace with all of us,
And the compact is firm and true in me.
Rivers. And so in me; and so I think im all.
Yet since it is but green, it should be put,
To no apparent likelihood of breach,
Which haply by much company might be urg’d :
Therefore I say, with noble Buckingham,
That it is meet so few should fetch the prince.”
Gloucester and Buckingham, who is at this time
”
78 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
his devoted humble servant, agree privately toge-
ther that they will be of the party to Ludlow, in
furtherance of their design
‘To part the queen’s proud kindred from the prince.”
There is no very material variation here from
Holinshed and Sir Thomas More. Gloucester and
Rivers did not meet immediately on Edward’s
death; Gloucester was in the north, having been
engaged in a campaign against the Scots. Rivers
had the care of the prince at Ludlow. It was at
first intended that young Edward should be brought
up to London accompanied by an imposing force ;
but Gloucester, or his friends, of whom the chief
were Buckingham and Hastings, persuaded the
queen that it would be much better for the peace
of the country, and for avoiding suspicions, that
the frain should be small.
And this account of Sir Thomas More is, ge-
nerally, supported by contemporary authority.
But the small train appears to have been the
subject of much debate in the council.*
We have now a scene in which the occurrences
of the journey from Ludlow are related to the
queen and the Duchess of York, who have with
them the Archbishop of York,t+ and the young
* Croyl. Cont., 565; see Lingard, 238.
+ Neville still held the see, .
RICHARD III. 79
prince Richard, Duke of York. But Shakspeare
first takes an opportunity of presenting this young
prince as a forward youth, and fit to be the medium
of a pun.
“York. Marry, they say my uncle grew so fast,
That he could gnaw a crust at two hours old;
’T was full two years ere I could get a tooth.
Grandam, this would have been a biting jest.”’
It is announced that Rivers, Vaughan,* and
Grey, have been sent by Gloucester and Bucking-
ham, as prisoners to Pomfret ; and another scene
produces them on their way to execution.
All this is from More. Edward had reached
Stony Stratford in his way to London; the dukes
arrived at Northampton, where they found Rivers.
Their measures soon betrayed the intention of some
violent proceeding. Rivers
‘‘ determined, upon the surety of his own conscience, to
go boldly to them, and ask what this matter might
mean. Whom as soon as they saw they began to
quarrel with him, and say that he intended to set dis-
tance between the king and them, and to bring them to
confusion, but it should not lie in his power. And
when he began (as he was a very well spoken man) in
goodly wise to excuse himself, they tarried not the end
of his answer, but shortly took him, and put him in
_* Sir Thomas Vaughan, an elderly knight, of the house-
hold of the young king,
80 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
ward, and that done went to horseback, and took the
way to Stony Stratford, where they found the king and
his company ready to leap on horseback, and depart
forward to leave that lodging for them, because it was
too straight for both companies. And as soon as they
came in his presence, they light adown with all their
company about them. To whom the Duke of Buck-
ingham said, Go afore, gentlemen, and yeomen keep
your rooms. And thus in a goodly array they came
to the king, and on their knees in very humble wise
saluted his grace, which received them in very joyous
and amiable manner, nothing earthly knowing or mis-
trusting as yet. But even by and by, in his presence,
they picked a quarrel with the Lord Richard Grey, the
king’s other brother by his mother, saying that he with
the lord marquis his brother, and the Lord Rivers his
uncle, had compassed to rule the king and the realm,
and to set variance among the states, and to subdue
and destroy the noble blood of the realm. Towards the
accomplishing whereof, they said, that the lord marquis
had entered into the Tower of London, and thence taken
out the king’s treasure, and sent men to the sea. All
which things, the said dukes write, were done for good
_ purposes and necessary, by the whole council at London,
saving that somewhat they must say. Unto which
words the king answered, ‘What my brother marquis
hath done I cannot say, but in good-will I dare well
answer for mine uncle Rivers and my brother Richard,
that they be innocent of any such matter. Yea, my liege,
(quoth the Duke of Buckingham) they have kept their
RICHARD III. 8]
dealing in these matters far from the knowledge of your
grace.’ And forthwith they arrested the Lord Richard
and Sir Thomas Vaughan, knight, in the king’s pre-
sence, and brought the king and all back unto North-
ampton, where they took again further counsel. And
then they went away from the king when it pleased
them, and set new servants about him, such as hiked
better than him. At which dealings he wept, and was
nothing content, but it booted not. And at dinner the
Duke of Gloucester sent a dish from his own table unto
the Lord Rivers, praying him to be of good cheer, all
should be well enough. And he thanked the duke, and
prayed the messenger to bear it to his nephew the Lord
Richard, with the same message for his comfort, who
he thought had more need of comfort, as one to whom
such adversity was strange. But himself had been all
his days in use therewith, and therefore could bear it
the better. But for all this comfortable courtesy of the
Duke of Gloucester, he sent the Lord Rivers, with the
Lord Richard, and Sir Thomas Vaughan into the north
country, into divers places to prison, and afterwards all
to Pomfret, where they were in conclusion beheaded.’’*
The young king’s asseveration of the innocence
of his maternal relations is slightly noticed in the
play :-+—
* More in Hol., 366.
+ Act ili., Se. 1, which is in London, where the king is
with Gloucester and Buckingham, and Archbishop Bour-
chier, who is now a cardinal.
E38
82 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
“* Prince.
our crosses on the way
Have made it tedious, wearisome, and heavy.
I want more uncles here to welcome me.
Glou. Those uncles which you want were dangerous:
Your grace attended to their sugar’d words,
But look’d not on the poison of their hearts ;
God keep you from them, and from such false friends !
Prince. God keep me from false friends! but they
were none.”
The Queen, with her younger son, the Duke of
York, takes sanctuary in Westminster Abbey.*
Buckingham enjoins Hastings to take York away
from his mother, using force if necessary. When
the cardinal objects, Buckingham argues that the
prince has done nothing to require sanctuary, and
cannot have the benefit of it, ending in the very
words ascribed to him by More :+
‘“« Oft have I heard of sanctuary men,
But sanctuary children ne’er till now.”
Sir Thomas More gives a dialogue between the
@ueen and the Cardinal, very interesting, but too
long to be inserted here. Finally, the boy is given
up, upon the prelate’s pledging himself for his
safety. None of this is given in the play. On the
other hand, there is a great deal of rather pert lan- «
* Actii. Se. 5, and Act iii. Sc. 1. + Hol., 373.
RICHARD III, 85
guage from the young Duke of York, for which I
find no warrant in the Chronicle.
Gloucester* and Buckingham now avow their
intention of placing the former upon the throne,
and make a confidant of Catesby,+ whom they em-
ploy to sound Lord Hastings; and they announce
their intention to hold * divided councils ;” the
meaning of which is partly explained in another
scene,{ in which Lord Stanley warns Hastings, by
a messenger, that
** there are two councils held ;
And that may be determined at the one,
Which may make you and him to rue at th’ other.”
And that he had been warned of evil conse-
quences in a dream. Hastings laughs at the dreams;
and tells the messenger,
‘‘ Bid him not fear the separated councils.
His honour and myself are at the one ;
And at the other is my good friend Catesby ;
Where nothing can proceed that toucheth us,
Whereof I shall not have intelligence.
* Gloucester was now Protector; his appointment is said
to have occurred in council, 27th May, but it was appa-
rently either made or confirmed by the peers. See Lingard,
*241; Croyl. Cont., 566; Excerpt. Hist., 13.
+ Catesby was of an ancient family in Northamptonshire.
eM.
84 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
To fly the boar* before the boar pursues,
Were to incense the boar to follow us.”
More says, that
‘“« The_protector and the duke, after they had sent the
lord cardinal, the Archbishop of York, then lord chan-
cellor, the Bishop of Ely, the Lord Stanley, and the
Lord Hastings, with many other noblemen, to commune
and devise about the coronation, in one place, as fast
were they in another place contriving the contrary,
and to make the protector king. To which council,
albeit, there were admitted very few, and they were
secret ; yet began there, here and thereabouts, some
manner of muttering among the people, as though all
should not long be well. . . . By little and little all folk
withdrew from the Tower, and drew unto Crosby’s in
Bishopsgate-street, where the protector kept his house-
hold. The protector had the resort, the king in manner.
desolate: <). aaa The Lord Stanley, that was after
Earl of Derby, wisely mistrusted it, and said unto the
Lord Hastings, that he much misliked these two several
councils. For while we (quoth he) talk of one matter
in one place, little wot we whereof they talk in the tother
place. My lord (quoth the Lord Hastings), on my life
never doubt you; for while one man is there which is
never thence, never can there be any thing once moved
that should sound amiss towards me, but it should bein
my ears ere it were well out of their mouths, This
* Gloucester, so called from his badge,
RICHARD III, 85
meant he by Catesby, which was of his near secret coun-
cil, and whom he very familiarly used, and in his most
weighty matters put no man in so special trust; reck-
| oning himself to no man so lief, since he well wist there
was no man so much to him beholden as was this Cates-
by, which was a man well learned in the laws of this
land, and by the special favour of the lord chamberlain
in good authority, and much rule bare in all the county
of Leicester, where the lord chamberlain’s power chiefly
lay.” *
The contemporary Chronicle says, that the coun-
cil was divided by the singular cunning of the
protector : a part being to meet in the Tower, and a
part at Westminster. And this separation was,
apparently, for the express purpose of facilitating
the proceedings against Hastings.+
In the play, as in the Chronicle, Catesby pro-
poses the elevation of Richard; congratulating
Lord Hastings upon the destruction of Rivers and
his other adversaries, at Pomfret. But Hastings
refuses to take part against the young king.
* Hol., 378.
+ Croyl. Cont., 566; Lingard, 242. It must be observed
that three places of meeting are mentioned—the Tower,
Westminster, and Crosby-square. I take the last to have
been the scene of private consultations only, and that por-
tions of the council met at the other two. See a contempo-
rary letter on Hastings’s death in Excerpt. Hist., p. 16.
86 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
A council is now held at the TTower,* Gloucester
enters, having heard of Hastings’s refusal, and
having communed with Buckingham, he addresses
the counsellors,
««T pray you all tell me what they deserve,
That do conspire my death with devilish plots
Of damned witchcraft, and that have prevail’d
Upon my body with their hellish charms.”
Hastings answers, that they deserve death. Glou-
cester exhibits his arm, ‘ wither’d up,” and imputes
this, which was in truth no new calamity, to the
Queen and Jane Shore, the well-known mistress of
Edward (a rather unlikely combination) :—
“ Hastings. If they have done this deed, my noble
~ lord
Glou. If! thou protector of this damned strumpet,
Talk’st thou to me of ifs ? Thou art a traitor,—
Off with his head! Now, by St. Paul, I swear,
I will not dine until I see the same.”
And execution is now done, Hastings’s head is
produced on the stage, and afterwards a scrivener
appears with the indictment against this unfortu-
nate lord, which he has been ordered to draw in the
utmost haste.
The whole of this, even to the smaller incidents,
* Buckingham, Stanley, Hastings, Bishop of Ely, Cates-
by, Lovel, and others.
RICHARD III. 87
including Gloucester’s sending to the garden of Ely
Palace for a dish of strawberries, is taken from Sir
Thomas More. That slight incident confirms the
probability, that More’s history was derived from
Bishop Morton, if not written (as Sir Henry Ellis
conjectures) by that prelate himself.
Except that Sir Thomas More is fuller, and
nothing is said in the Continuation of Croyland* of
the Queen’s reluctance} to part with her son Ri-
chard, that contemporary register agrees as to facts
with More’s narrative. No author, nor any record
that is extant, gives reason to doubt of the sum-
mary nature of the process by which the execution
of Hastings, and of the prisoners of Pomfret, was
effected. But More, and Shakspeare after him,
place the withdrawal of the young prince from the
sanctuary, before the execution of Hastings. Ac-
cording to the more credible history, it occurred a
few days afterwards.}
Hastings was not the only person whom Glouces-
ter, or his friends, attacked at this council in the
Tower. More says that
** Another let fly at the Lord Stanley, which shrunk at
the stroke, and fell under the table, or else his head had
been cleft to the teeth, for as shortly as he shrunk, yet
ran the blood about his ears.”
a P. 556. + Hol., 374.
{ June 16th. Hastings was beheaded on the 13th.
88 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
And we are told that the Archbishop of York,
and the Bishop of Ely, were only saved from capital
punishment out of respect to their order, and that
they were sent as prisoners into Wales.*
Walpole attempts a sort of justification of
Richard ; alleging not only, which is true, that the
punishment of state offences was in those times
conducted with little of judicial trial, but that the
Queen and her friends were the aggressors ; having
endeavoured: to surround the young king with a
large force, and also assembled armed men in the
neighbourhood of the sanctuary in which Elizabeth
had taken refuge ;—all which hostile demonstra-
tions were in order to maintain the custody of the
king’s person, and to exclude from all share in the
government, during the minority, the Dukes of
Gloucester and Buckingham, one of them the first
prince of the blood, and the other nearly allied to
the throne. Richard wrote on the 10th of June a
letter, commanding the men of the north
“‘ to rise and come to London, under the Earl of North-
umberland and the Lord Nevil, to assist in subduing,
correcting, and punishing the Queen, her blood, and
other her adherents, who intended to murder and destroy
the Protector and his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham,
and the old royal blood of the realm.” {
* Croyl. Cont., 566. + Works, ii. 128.
t Turner, iii. 405; from Drake’s Eboracum, p. 115; and
see Lingard, 244.
RICHARD III. 89
But this only shows the pretext, not the fact. Yet
Sharon Turner gives Richard credit for the since-
rity and reasonableness of his apprehensions. *
A contest for power between the queen’s relations
and those of the late king was a matter of course.
Whether the measures adopted or contemplated by
the former so far exceeded the bounds of political
contention as to justify the brothers and friends of
Edward in treating them as traitors, is a question
upon which no sufficient evidence exists.
Shakspeare’s version, which refers the executions
to the tyranny and ambition of Richard, has cer-
tainly a sufficient foundation for a dramatist; but
it must not be received as authentic history,
It is upon the same authority of Sir Thomas
More,+ that Gloucester and Buckingham, by way
of making it appear that a sudden alarm obliged
them to arm in great haste, are introduced “in
rusty armour, marvellous ill-favoured.”+ In this
_ guise they send for the Lord Mayor of London,
and easily satisfy him that Hastings had plotted
against their lives, and that his sudden execution
was an act of urgent necessity. What follows has
more of poetical licence :—
“* Glou. Come, cousin, canst thou quake and change
thy colour ?
* 111, 392. f) Hots} 382.
t Act iii. Se. 5.
90 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Murder thy breath in middle of a word,
And then again begin, and stop again
As if thou wert distraught, and mad with terror ?
_ Buck. Tut! I can counterfeit the deep tragedian ;
Speak, and look back, and pry on every side ;
Tremble and start at wagging of a straw,
Intending deep suspicion ;~ghastly looks
Are at my service like enforced smiles ;
And both are ready in their offices,
At any time, to grace my stratagems.”
It is now agreed that Buckingham shall openly
harangue the citizens in favour of Richard’s claim
to the crown, setting forth the illegitimacy of the
two princes, by reason of their father’s marriage
with “ Lady Lucy,” previous to his union with
Elizabeth Grey. And he was even instructed, at
the expense of the honour of Gloucester’s mother,
the Duchess of York, to hint that Edward himself
had been illegitimate ;* and this he was to enforce
by the want of resemblance between the late King
and Richard, Duke of York, while Gloucester him-
self was described as
‘ Being the right idea of your father,
Both in your form, and nobleness of mind.”
* Clarence had been accused, in the Act of Attainder, of
making a similar insinuation. AH the topics of Bucking-
ham’s harangue are said to have been set forth in a sermon
at Paul’s Cross, by Dr. Shaw (More in Hol., 386 ; Fabyan,
669). Shakspeare makes Richard send for him, but we hear
no more.—See Lingard, 547.
RICHARD III. 91
And Buckingham thus continues the report of
his harangue, and its issue: he
** Laid open all your victories in Scotland ;
Your discipline in war, wisdom in peace,
Your bounty, virtue, fair humility.
Indeed, left nothing fitting for your purpose
Untouch’d, or slightly handled in discourse.
And, when my oratory grew to an end,
I bade them that did love their country’s good
Cry, God save Richard, England’s royal king !
Glou. And did they so?
Buck. No! So God help me : they spake not a word;
But, like dumb statues, or breathless stones,
Star’d on each other, and look’d deadly pale ;
Which, when I saw, I reprehended them ;
And ask’d the mayor, What meant this wilful silence ?
His answer was, The people were not used
To be spoke to but by the recorder.
Then he was urg’d to tell my tale again:
Thus saith the duke-—thus hath the duke inferred ;
But nothing spoke in warrant from himself.
When he had done, some followers of mine own,
At lower end of hall, hurl’d up their caps,
And some ten voices cried, God save King Richard !
And then I took the vantage of those few :
Thanks, gentle citizens and friends, quoth I ;
This general applause and cheerful shout
Argues your wisdom, and your love to Richard:
And even here brake off, and came away.”
92 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
The mayor, however, had been gained, and
was now expected, with a request that Richard
would ascend the throne; and he, whose dra-
matic character is that of a consummate hypo-
crite, is to be found with a prayer-book in his
hand, in serious discourse with two bishops.*
All this is enacted, and, with a great deal of
assumed unwillingness, he finally accepts the
crown.
The whole process is in Shakspeare’s autho-
rity ;f but the precontract, upon which it was
attempted to set aside Edward’s marriage with
Lady Grey, was with Lady Eleanor Butler (not
Lady Lucy, who, however, was also one of Ed-
ward’s favourites) ;—this lady was daughter of
the famous Earl of Shrewsbury, and widow of
Lord Butler.t
And the supplication to Richard, to take
* Malone observes that this piece of hypocrisy is not
in More. Bosw. 142. + Hol., 395.
t See Walpole, 133; Croyl. Cont., 567. This lady is
not named by Collins, among the children of Lord
Shrewsbury, but Lingard shows (p. 250) that she has a
place in the ‘Talbot pedigree. Nothing turns upon her
birth or marriage. Comines says (b.v. c.18), that the
Bishop of Bath (Stillington) told Richard, that he mar-
ried Edward privately to a lady unnamed ; but he says
afterwards, if I understand him (b. vi, c.9), that there
was no marriage.
RICHARD III. 93
upon him the royal dignity, had a somewhat
more valid pretence to constitutional authority,
than would be inferred from either Shakspeare
or More. It professed to be an election by “ us,
the three estates of the land;” though, when
afterwards confirmed by act of parliament, it
was said to have been delivered “* by many and
divers lords, spiritual and temporal, and other
nobles, and noteth persons of the commons in
great multitude ;” but it is added, that “ neither
the said three estates, neither the said persons
which in their name presented and delivered the
said roll, were assembled in form of parliament.”*
The act set forth the illegitimacy of the two sons
of Edward.
We now come to the murder of the young
princes :
« K. Rich. Ah, Buckingham! now do I ply the
touch,
To try if thou be current gold indeed :—
Young Edward lives ;—think now what I would
speak.
* Rolls, vi. 240 ; the Croyl. Cont. has also the expres-
sion, ex parte dominorum et communitatis regni, and says
nothing of Dr. Shaw. Fabyan (p. 669) mentions Suffolk
and other nobles as present, but says nothing of estates.
Suffolk was John de la Pole, son of Margaret’s favourite,
and married to Elizabeth, the sister of Richard ITI.
94 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Buck. Say on, my loving lord.
K. Rich. Why, Buckingham, I say I would be king.
Buck. Why, so you are, my thrice-renowned liege.
K. Rich. Ha! Am I king? ’Tis so—but Edward
lives.
Buck. True, noble prince.
K. Rich. O bitter consequence !
That Edward still should live.—True, noble prince !—
Cousin, thou wert not wont to be so dull :—
Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead ;
And I would have it suddenly perform’d.
What say’st thou now ?—Speak suddenly,—be brief.
Buck. Your grace may do your pleasure.
K. Rich. Tut, tut! thou art all ice, thy kindness
freezes ;
Say, have I thy consent that they should die ?
Buck. Give me some breath, some little pause,
dear lord,
Before I positively speak in this :
I will resolve your grace immediately. [ Bait.
Catesby. The king is angry ; see, he gnaws his lip.
K. Rich. I will converse with iron-witted fools,
And unrespective boys; none are for me,
That look unto me with considerate eyes ;
High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect.”
I find no authority for this scheme, or for any
attempt to involve Buckingham in the : TAR
of the princes.
The Richard of the play then employs a page
RICHARD III, 95
to find him a murderer, and is informed of
Tyrrel, to whom he gives the commission.
Buckingham takes occasion to solicit the grants
which Richard had promised him, but is treated
scornfully, and announces his intention of retir-
ing into Wales. In the next scene the murder is
described, which had been accomplished, under
Tyrrel’s superintendence, by Dighton and For-
rest.
Comparing, in this as in other cases, the nar-
rative of Sir Thomas More with that of con-
temporary writers, I find that the continuator
of Croyland does not state that the princes were
murdered, or that such was the general belief.
But he says, that while the princes remained in
the Tower, the people of the southern and wes-
tern parts of England began to murmur ; and
there was a report that some of the late king’s
daughters had escaped from sanctuary to foreign
parts, in order that, if anything should happen
(this is very expressive) to the sons, the crown
might still be preserved to the true heirs. It was
after the people of the southern counties began
to stir, and Buckingham had become their cap-
tain, that it was reported that the two boys had
died in the Tower, by some sort of violent
death.*
* Croyl., 567, 568.
96 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
The suspicions of Fabyan are expressed more
plainly. He says, that
« The common fame went, that King Richard had
within the Tower, put unto secret death the sons of
his brother, Edward IV.; for the which and other
causes, hid within the breast of the Duke of Buck-
ingham, the said duke, in secret manner, conspired
against him.’’*
The Records of Parliament furnish nothing
but the recital, in the act of attainder of Ri-
chard and his adherents, of
“‘the unnatural, mischievous, and great perjuries,
treasons, homicides, and murders in shedding of in-
Ffant’s blood, with many other wrongs, odious offences,
and abominations against God and man, and espe-
cially against our said sovereign lord, committed and
done by Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, calling and
naming himself by usurpation, King Richard III.” +
I do not lay much stress upon the absence of
more direct reference, in this record, to the mur-
der of Edward V. and his brother. The treason
charged upon Richard was made, by a most im-
pudent assumption, to consist in levying war at
Bosworth against Henry VII., and it did not
suit the Lancastrian policy of that king to recog-
* P. 670, + Rollaaiaennin
RICHARD III. 97
nise the son of Edward IV. as the sovereign
whose life could not be taken away without high
treason.*
But I cannot agree with Hume, in giving
faith to the narrative of Sir Thomas More, whe-
ther written by that eminent man, or by Arch-
bishop Morton. The murderous order sent to
Brackenbury from a distance, in the uncertainty
whether he would obey it ; the story of the page
and Tyrrel, the commission to the Tower of that
person for a single night, are circumstances
highly improbable, with which, neither More
nor Morton was in a situation to be acquainted,
if they did actually occur. Morton was very
likely to invent or exaggerate facts unfavoura-
ble to Richard; and Tyrrel was of a station
much too high to be picked out by a page. His
brothers and he were successively masters of the
horse.
More’s authority proves, only what Fabyan’s
is enough to prove, that there was a rumour and
suspicion of murder. Comines says, that Louis
XI. (not in general very scrupulous) refused to
answer Richard’s notification of his accession,
because he thought him wicked and cruel. But
Louis’s answer is extant, and though short, is
* See Hallam’s Middle Ages, iii. 297.
VOL. II. F
98 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
passably courteous and friendly.* And cer-
tainly there is this difference between this crime
and the others which are imputed to Richard.
For this, a more natural motive may be assigned;
and while the disappearance of the two princes
remains unaccounted for, the habits of the age, I
fear, teach us to look upon their murder by their
uncle, as not the least probable solution of the
mystery. It is true, that Richard was already
king, in fact, and that the death of his nephews
did not make him king of right ;_ but their exis-
tence might be thought eventually dangerous :
the murder was not politic or necessary, but was
not gratuitous.
I cannot go more deeply into the controversy ;
but I would recommend those who are disposed
to rely upon Shakspeare, to read the ‘‘ Historic
Doubts,” I do not profess to have myself resolved
them in favour of Richard.+
* See Turner, 3d edit. 439.
+ Hume’s note (M. vol. iii.), is by some persons deemed
a masterly answer to Walpole. But he relies too much
upon Sir’ Thomas More; and Walpole’s criticisms (p.195)
upon the passage in which he lauds the magnanimity of
that historian, are quite just and applicable. Some pas-
sages in the note are ridiculous; as where, the subject
of question being the murder of the two princes in the
Lower, he says, that itis plain that More had his infor-
mation from eye witnesses ! His averment that “all the
partisans of the house of York were assured of the mur-
RICHARD III, 99
In the midst of his murderous plans against
his nephews, the accomplished villain of Shaks-
peare instructs his agent, Catesby, to
** rumour it abroad,
That Anne, my wife, is very grievous sick ;”
and tells him to
“« Inquire me out some mean-born gentleman,
Whom I will marry straight to Clarence’s daughter.
The boy is foolish, and I fear not him ;”
and adds,
“I must be married to my brother’s daughter.”
And in the next, he congratulates himself on
the execution of all his plans, except the last.
He has put young Clarence (Earl of Warwick)
in prison, and has “ meanly married” his sister ;
—his wife is dead, and so are the children of
Edward.
‘“« Now, for I know the Bretagne Richmond aims
At young Elizabeth, my brother’s daughter,
And by that knot looks proudly on the crown ;
To her go I, a jolly thriving wooer.”
It is true that he placed Warwick in confine-
ment; aud that Margaret was married to Sir
der,’ is unsupported. I own, however, that I deem the
notion, that one prince escaped and the other was mur-
dered, as little supported by probability as by evidence.
F2
100 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Richard Pole; but Pole could not accurately
be called mean, except in comparison with roy-
alty. Nor does it appear that he was married
at the instigation of Richard, or, indeed, that
the marriage occurred during Richard’s life. Sir
Richard Pole was connected with the family of
Henry VII.,* who made him a Knight of the
Garter.
It is clearly insinuated by our poet, that the
life of Queen Anne was shortened by her hus-
band’s means, and this is the last of the imputed
murders which I have to notice. This charge
rests on More alone ; nor does he affirm the fact.
Richard, he says, had spread a rumour of her
death :—
«*« Now, when the queen heard tell that so horrible
a rumour of her death was sprung amongst the com-
monalty, she sore suspected and judged the world
to be almost an end with her. And in that sorrow-
ful agony, she with lamentable countenance and
sorrowful cheer, repaired to the presence of the king
her husband, demanding of him what it should mean,
* He was the son of Geoffrey Pole of Buckingham-
shire, by Edith, daughter of Sir Oliver St. John, and Mar-
garet Beauchamp, afterwards wife of John Beaufort,
Duke of Somerset, and mother to the Countess of Rich-
mond, the mother of Henry VIT.—See Coll. Topograph.,
i, 295, 310. He was a K.G., but probably not until the
time of Henry VII.
RICHARD III. 101
that he had adjudged her worthy to die. The king
answered her with fair words, and with smiling and
flattering leasings comforted her, and bid her be of
good cheer, for (to his knowledge) she should have
no other cause. But howsoever that it fortuned,
that either by inward thought and pensiveness of
heart, or by infection of poison which is affirmed to be
most likely, within few days after, the queen de-
parted out of this transitory life, and was with due
solemnity buried in the church of St. Peter at West-
minster.”’*
I find nothing in Fabyan ; the Croyland Con-
tinuator says, that Anne died of a languishing
disorder ;+ I see no reason whatever for believ-
ing that she was murdered.
Richard’s intention to marry his niece Eliza-
beth, is in More,} who says that her mother was
gained over by promises of advantage to her
family, as well as by Richard’s “ wily wit.” It
is also mentioned in connexion with Queen Anne’s
death, by the Croyland Continuator.
* Hol., 430.
+ “ Regina vehementissimé egrotare cepit, cujus lan-
guor ideo magis atque magis excrecisse censebatur, quod
rex ipse thori sui consertium omnino aspernabitur.
Itaque a medicis sibi consultum ut faceret, judicavit.
Quid plura? Circa medium Martii sequentis, in die
magno eclipsis solis que tune temporis accidebat, obiit
prefata Anna Regina.” Croyl. Cont., p. 572.
t Hol., 529, 533; Croyl. Cont., 572.
102 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
He says that many things happened of bad
example, which is disagreeable to relate, but
he cannot avoid mentioning. He then tells us,
that much scandal was excited among the people,
as well as among the peers and prelates, by the
appearance of Queen Anne and the Princess
Elizabeth at Richard’s court in dresses precisely
similar, whence it was inferred, that either by a
divorce, or by the death of the queen, Richard
entertained the idea of marrying Elizabeth.*
But the marriage was so unpopular, that he was
advised by his closest adherents to deny that he
had projected it.
As in the case of his first wife, Richard’s
wooing is performed upon the stage; and he
talks over the queen dowager, who begins by
imputing to him a whole catalogue of crimes,
into giving her daughter, as he had talked over
Anne into marrying him herself. It is not with-
out reason that he calls her,
“ Relenting fool, and shallow, changing, woman.”
It clearly appears from a document published
by Sir Henry Ellis, t that the queen dowager,
after her marriagewith Edward had been declared
* Croyl., 568. Then follows the passage about the
queen’s sickness, already quoted. See Lingard, 262.
+ Letters, second series, i. 149, See Turner, 494.
RICHARD III. 103
void, was invited to send her four daughters to
Richard’s court, where they were to receive
pecuniary allowances, and to be well treated, and
married to gentlemen. And it appears from the
story in the Croyland Continuation, that she
accepted this invitation.
Lingard,* as well as Walpole,+ gives credence
to a story in Buck, from which it would appear,
not only that the queen dowager consented to
give her daughter to Richard, but that the young
Elizabeth herself was ambitious of the proffered
honour ; that she wrote a letter to the Duke of
Norfolk, “ desiring him to be a mediator for her
to the king, on the behalf of the marriage pro-
pounded between them,—who was her only joy
and master in this world, and she was his in
heart and thought, withal insinuating that the
better part of February was past, and that she
feared the queen (whose death in that month had
been predicted by physicians) would never die.”*t
I own that I doubt the truth of this story.
If I could believe it, 1 should certainly be very
* P. 264. + P.Lél.
\t See Kennet, i. 568. Buck says that this letter, in
his time, was in the cabinet of Thomas, Earl of Arundel
and Surry. Mr. Howard of Corby has kindly procured
a search to be made for this curious paper; but it can-
not be found.
104 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
slow, indeed, to think it possible that Richard
murdered, or was at the time generally suspected
of murdering, the two brothers. Yet, perhaps, the
acknowledged return of the degraded widow of
Edward IV. to Richard’s court might as fairly
be deemed incompatible with that suspicion !
The mystery is, indeed, beyond me!
Just before and after this scene of the court-
ship, intelligence is brought to Richard of
various important events.
“* Catesby. Bad news, my lord, Morton is fled to
Richmond ;
And Buckingham, back’d with the hardy Welehinen!
Is in the field, and still his power increaseth*
Ratcliff. Most mighty sovereign, on the western
coast
Rideth a puissant navy; to the shore
Throng many doubtful hollow-hearted friends,
Unarm’d, and unresolv’d to beat them back.
‘Tis thought that Richmond is their admiral :
And there they hull, expecting but the aid
Of Buckingham, to welcome them ashore.
Stanley. Richmond is on the seas.
K. Rich. There let him sink, and be the seas on
him !
White-liver’d runagate, what doth he there ?
* Activ. Se. 3.
RICHARD III. 105
Stan. I know not, mighty sovereign, but by guess.
K. Rich. Well, as you guess?
Stan. Stirr’d up by Dorset, Buckingham, and
Morton,
He makes for England here, to claim the crown.”
The king distrusts Lord Stanley,—
“* But hear you, leave behind
Your son, George Stanley: look your heart be firm,
Or else his head’s assurance is but frail.
Stan. So deal with him, as I prove true to you.
Messenger. My gracious sovereign, now in Devon-
shire,
As I by friends am well advertised,
Sir Edward Courtenay, and the haughty prelate,
Bishop of Exeter, his elder brother,
With many more confederates, are in arms.
Second Mess. In Kent, my liege, the Guildfords
are in arms,
And every hour more competitors
Flock to the rebels, and their power grows strong.
Third Mess. The news I have to tell your ma-
jesty,
Is, that, by sudden floods and fall of waters,
Buckingham’s army is dispersed and scatter’d,
And he himself wander’d away alone,
No man knows whither.
F 3
106 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Fourth Mess. Sir Thomas Lovel,* and Lord Mar-
quis Dorset,
’Tis said, my lord, in Yorkshire are in arms ;
But this good comfort bring I to your highness,
The Bretagne navy is dispersed by tempest.
Richmond, in Dorsetshire, sent out a boat
Unto the shore, to ask those on the banks,
If they were his assistants, yea or no ;
Who answer’d him they came from Buckingham
Upon his party ; he mistrusting them,
Hoisted sail, and made his course again for Bretagne.
Catesby. My liege, the Duke of Buckingham is
taken,
That is the best news; that the Earl of Richmond
Is with a mighty power landed at Milford,
Is colder news, but yet they must be told.
K. Rich, Away, towards Salisbury.” +
These events are not related exactly according
to Sir Thomas More. When Buckingham, dis-
contented with Richard, retired to Brecknock,
he found Morton there, who had been committed,
to his custody, just after the Protector, by way
of a blind, I suppose, had admired his straw-
* I do not know who this was. The Lovel who adhered
to Richard, was Francis Viscount Lovel, of the house of
Perceval. He left no issue, but the Earl of Egmont is
his male heir. Collins, vii. 544.
+ Activ. Se. 4.
RICHARD III. 107
berries. Morton had been a Lancastrian, though
after the death of Henry VI. and his son, he
had adhered to Edward IV., whose chaplain he
became. He now took pains to entice Bucking-
ham into a confidential conversation on the state
of the monarchy,* and let it out pretty plainly
that he was not well satisfied with King Richard.
Just at this moment, in the midst of their con-
versation, which Morton probably ‘himself re-
peated to Sir Thomas More, we lose the autho-
rity of that writer.- The rest of the conversa-
tion is from Hall, and, of course, quite fanciful.
However, Shakspeare makes no use of it, though
it might certainly have furnished a good scene.
For the bishop having let out his grievances
cautiously and by degrees, at last solicited the
duke to take the crown himself; or if he was
* Morton exhorts the duke to deliver the kingdom
from its perils, by the oath which he has taken as a Knight
of the Garter. Sir Harris Nicolas informs me that at this
time no oath was taken, except for the observance of the
statutes. In the time of Henry VIII. they were sworn to
sustain the honour and dominions of the king—there is
another inaccuracy, when Richard swears by his George,
a badge not used in his time.
+ So it is stated in the margin of Hol., 405. Hall
has the same notice (p. 379), prior to the commencement
of the communication between Morton and Buckingham.
At all events, the important part of the conversation has
not More’s authority.
108 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
averse to that, then “to set up again the lineage
of Lancaster, or advance the eldest daughter of
King Edward to some high and puissant prince.”
Buckingham then opened himself to Morton ;
telling him that Richard’s first purpose was,
that he should wear the crown till young Edward
should complete his twenty-fourth year: when
Buckingham hesitated at approving this, he
began to question the legitimacy of the two
princes. Buckingham acknowledged that it was
by his means that Richard was made king, pro-
mising, however, that his nephews should live
and be honourably maintained. The duke did
not, according to this version, acknowledge that
the murder of the boys had been proposed to
him; but he left Richard, first, because the
Hereford estate was denied to him,* and se-
condly, because the princes had been put to
death. Buckingham, then, according to his own
account, thought of setting up his own claim to
the crown ; for, he said,
** T suddenly remembered that the lord Edmund,
Duke of Somerset, my grandfather, was with King
Henry VI., in the two and three degrees from John,
* Turner (ili. 436) shows that the Hereford estates
were granted to Buckingham. This fact brings into
question, not the credit, but accuracy of the information
of Sir Thomas More,
RICHARD III. 109
Duke of Lancaster, lawfully begotten, so that I
thought sure, my mother being eldest daughter to
Duke Edmund, that I was next heir to King Henry
VI., of the house of Lancaster.”
But he adds,
‘“* As I rode between Worcester and Bridgnorth, I
- encountered with the lady Margaret, Countess of
Richmond, now with unto the Lord Stanley, which
is the very daughter and sole heir to John, Duke of
Somerset, my grandfather’s elder brother, which was
as clean out of my mind as though I had never seen
her ; so that she and her son, the Earl of Richmond,
be both bulament and portcullis between me and the
gate, to enter into the majesty royal and getting of
the crown.”
The result was a suggestion, that Richmond
should be set up as heir of Lancaster, marrying
Elizabeth, as the heiress of York.
The bishop now escaped from custody, and
got over to Flanders, as in the play. How soon
after this Buckingham raised his hardy Welsh-
men, I have not ascertained; but no long time
elapsed before his army, owing to the overflow
of the waters, was dispersed and scattered. The
appearance of Richmond and his fleet off the
coast of Dorsetshire, and his ultimate landing at
Miford, are taken exactly from the Chronicle.
110 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
The Courtenays* certainly rose in Devonshire.
The Guildfords were a distinguished family
seated at Hempstead in Kent. Sir Richard was
K.G. under Henry VII., and Sir Edward, his
son, was father-in-law to John Dudley, Duke of
Northumberland.
But much time, and important events, oc-
curred before Richmond landed. Among the
most remarkable, is the Queen Dowager’s in-
viting her son, Dorset, to quit the Earl of
Richmond. King Richard appears to have —
completely succeeded in conciliating or intimi-
dating her.+
The distrust of Lord Stanley, the detention
of his son as hostage, and his communication
with Richmond, and ultimate description of
Richard, are all historical facts. And Sir Chris-
topher Urswick is an historical person; he was
chaplain to the Countess of Richmond, and
* But there is some confusion. Holinshed (p. 417)
makes ‘“ Peter Courtenay, Bishop of Exeter, and Sir
Edmund Courtenay his brother, by King Henry VII.
afterwards created Karl of Devonshire.’”’ Now Peter was
of a younger branch, and not brother of Edward, after-
wards created Earl of Devon; he had an elder brother
Edmund; yet surely the powerful insurgent must have
been the head of the family, to whom the earldom was
restored by the new king, Probably both Edward and
Edmund took arms. + Turner, 495.
RICHARD III, 111
employed as a messenger between Richmond
and his friends in England:* whose friends he
thus enumerates,—
‘¢ Sir Walter Herbert, a renowned soldier ;
Sir Gilbert Talbot, Sir William Stanley, §
Oxford, || redoubted Pembroke,{| Sir James
Blount,** and Rise ap Thomas.”
The fifth act opens with Buckingham, on his
way to execution, at Salisbury. A note in
Boswell, confirmed, as I understand, by local
information, states that the execution really took
place at Shrewsbury.
We have now Richard in the neighbourhood
of Tamworth, to which place he had marched
from Milford, and as we have presently both
armies in Bosworth field; Richard is accom-
panied by Norfolk ++ and Surry.
“K. Rich. Who has descried the number of the
traitors ?
* Bosw., 202. + [ cannot identify him.
{ Son of the second Earl of Shrewsbury and ancestor
of the present.
§ Brother of Lord Stanley.
|| John de Vere, 13th Earl, who appears in Henry VI.
4] Jasper Tudor.
** T cannot find this Pattee among the Blounts of
Mapledurham ; but see Malone’s note in Bosw., 207.
++ John Howard, the first duke of that name. Surry
was his son Thomas, so created; the victor of Flodden.
Collins, i. 57.
112 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Norf. Six or seven thousand is their utmost
strength.
K. Rich. Why, our battalion trebles that account:
Besides, the king’s name is a tower of strength,
Which they of the adverse faction want.”
Presently,
“ K. Rich. Saddle White Surry for the field to-
morrow,
Saw’st thou the melancholy Lord Northumberland ?
Rat. Thomas the Earl of Surry, and himself,
Much about cock-shut time, from troop to troop,
Went through the army, cheering up the soldiers.*
K. Rich. So, I am satisfied. Give me a bowl of
wine;
I have not that alacrity of spirit
Nor cheer of mind, that I was won’t to have.”
The private meeting between Richmond and
Stanley is from the Chronicle. It took place
at the village of Aderston.+
We have now the ghosts:
«The fame went, that Richard had the same night
a dreadful and terrible dream; for it seemed to him,
* Malone says, that the epithet of melancholy was
given to Henry, the fourth Earl of Northumberland,
because he was ill-affected to Richard, and stood aloof
(Bosw., 213). This does not assort with the activity
here ascribed to him. + Hol., 439.
RICHARD III. 113
being asleep, that he did see divers images like ter-
rible devils, which pulled and haled him, not suffering
him to take any quiet or rest. The which strange
vision not so suddenly struck his heart with a sudden
fear, but it shifted his head and troubled his mind
with many busy and dreadful imaginations. For
incontinent after, his heart being almost damped, he
prognosticated before the doubtful chance of the
battle to come; not using the alacrity and mirth of
mind and countenance as he was accustomed to do
before he came toward the battle.*
_ Although Richard’s address to his companions
in arms is suggested by Holinshed, where Rich-
ard publicly confessed that for obtaining the
crown he committed ‘*a wicked and detestable”
act; of which, however, he has repented.
Shakspeare’s Richard} makes this confession
to himself alone, and in addressing his army,
says,
** Conscience is but a word that cowards use.”
His depreciation of Richmond as a milk-sop,
and of his Breton soldiers,
“‘ whom our fathers
ee
Have in their own land beaten, bobb’d, and thump’d,”’
Shakspeare has his usual authority. But in
Holinshed, the king appeals to the rectitude of
* Hol., 438, + Act. v., Se. 3.
114 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
his administration; whereas our poet studiously
avoids allusion to any circumstance favourable
to Richard. 7
In taking from Holinshed the oration of
Richmond, the poet has not found it necessary
to use his licence. ‘The Chronicler was the ori-
ginal poet. He supplied a plentiful imputation,
not only of murder in acquiring the crown, but
of oppression and tyranny in using its powers;
for which latter there is no authority whatever.
The order of battle is from the Chronicle,
but the unhorsing of Richard is imaginary ;
it 1s allowed that he displayed much personal
bravery, and, we are told that in this instance
the personal conflict between the two rivals,
which almost always occurs on the stage, did
actually take place. It is, however, not stated
that Richard fell by Henry’s own hand.
It may be observed that Henry, referring in
his final and triumphant address to the contest
between York and Lancaster, says,
“©O now let Richmond and Elizabeth,
The true succeeders of each royal house,
By God’s fair ordinance conjoin together.”
Elizabeth was the undoubted heiress of York,
and certainly conveyed to the Tudors their best
hereditary title. Henry was not the representa-
RICHARD III. 115
tive of Lancaster, in any sense in which that
representation would have given him a title to
the crown, either ancestral or parliamentary.
Through his mother he was the representative
of the Beauforts, the illegitimate descendants of
John of Gaunt. But the crown was never
given by parliament to the heirs of John of
-Gaunt. The Lancastrian title began with
Henry IV. Even, therefore, if the legitima-
tion* of the Beauforts had not contained a
bar to their claim to the royal succession, they
would have had no claim while any descendants
remained of the elder brother of John of Gaunt.
Nevertheless, Henry VII. was fond of his Lan-
castrian title, and seldom, if ever, put forward
the Yorkist right of his wife, or built, as in the
play, upon’the union of the two houses.
Of Richard IIT. Johnson says,
“« This is one of the most celebrated of our author’s
performances; yet I know not whether it has not
happened to him as to others, to be praised most
when praise is not most deserved. That this play has
scenes noble in themselves, and very well contrived
to strike in the exhibition, cannot be denied. But
some parts are trifling, others shocking, and some
impossible.”’+
* On which see Excerpt. Hist., 152.
+ Bosw., 243,
116 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Malone adds, that the play
‘“was patronized by the queen on the throne, who
probably was not a little pleased at seeing King
Henry VII. placed in the only favourable light in
which he could have been exhibited on the scene.”
And Steevens concurring in the judgment of
Johnson and Malone, says,
‘** Perhaps they have overlooked one cause of the
success of this tragedy. The part of Richard is,
perhaps, beyond all others, variegated, and conse-
quently favourable to a judicious performer. The
hero, the lover, the statesman, the buffoon, the hypo-
crite, the hardened and repentant sinner, &c., are to
be found within its compass. No wonder, therefore,
that the discriminating powers of a Burbage, a Gar-
rick, and a Henderson, should at different periods
have given it a popularity beyond other dramas of
the same author. Yet the favour with which this
tragedy is now received, must also, in some measure,
be attributed to Mr. Cibber’s reformation of it, which,
generally considered, is judicious.”
I agree in the opinion that the popularity of
this play is owing to the character of Richard,
and the way in which it is sustained by the
dramatist, and has been performed by the actor;
not because the character is variegated, but be-
cause it is uniform—that of an hypocritical vil-
lain, pursuing by wicked means the one great
RICHARD III. 117
object of ambition. The scenes which might be
selected from the play as specimens of Shak-
speare’s power are not his best. ‘They would
be inferior in interest and excitement to the
somewhat cognate scenes in the less valued play
of King John, and would present few passages
in splendid language. My friend, Mr. Broderip,
has shown me a play,* from which it appears
that in the time of Charles II., a different and
inferior play of Richard III. was acted in
London.
Of secondary personages, Buckingham is the
best; but there is not much in his character.
Margaret sustains her part well, but that is
entirely fanciful, and not to be admired. Shak-
speare’s character of Queen Anne is imaginary,
and not well imagined. Nor does the scene in
which the courtship is represented, contain pas-
sages of dramatic merit sufficient to countervail
the fault of the conception.
The received history is pretty closely followed ;
but, when this play was written, the belief which
it was the view of the Tudors to encourage had
not been disturbed by the historic doubts of a
later age.
* The English Princess, or the Death of Richard IIT.,
as it is now acted at His Highness the Duke of York’s
Theatre, 1674.
118
HENRY VIII.
In coming to the last play of the English
historical series, we omit a period of about
thirty-five years; namely, the whole reign of
Henry VII., and the first eleven years of that
of Henry VIII. We pass from 1485 to 1520.
The plays of Richard III. and Henry VIII.
are distinguished, in one respect, from the pre-
ceding ; they treat of times so near to those in
which they were written, and of persons so nearly
connected with the reigning queen, as to exhibit
a stronger bias in favour of one view of doubt-
ful history. In Richard III. this bias shows
itself in blackening the character of Richard,
and in representing Henry VII. in the favour-
able light of his successful rival, invited by the
nobles of the land to deliver it from a tyrannical
usurper.
From the reign of Henry VII. himself, it
would probably have been difficult to make a
HENRY VIII, 119
good play ; but it would have been still more
difficult to make of the first of the Tudor kings
a hero, who would realize the prophecy of Hen-
ry VI.* and the expectations of the conquerors
of Bosworth field. In the play of Henry VIII.
Shakspeare does not forget that the king was
the father of Elizabeth.
Another peculiarity attached to this play is,
that Shakspeare’s usual authority now becomes
a contemporary ; at least, the narrative upon
which he relies is derived immediately from con-
temporary writings. Holinshed did not live in
the time of Henry VIII., but Hall was cer-
tainly of years of discretion—a barrister, and
(like Fabyan) under-sheriff, if not a member of
parliament during a part of that reign.t And
the work of Polydore Vergil, whom Holinshed
also quotes, was written and published within
the same period.+
The point of time at which the play com-
mences is fixed by the opening scene, in which
* See p. 37.
+ He was probably born at the close of the fifteenth
century, in the reign of Henry VII., and was at least
twenty years old at the period at which this play com-
mences—1520. Holinshed’s date is not known, but his
work was published in 1577, the 19th of Elizabeth.
Biog. Brit., xvii. 46.
¢ In 1533. Biog. Brit., xiii. 309.
120 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
the Duke of Norfolk* gives to the Duke of
Buckingham+ a description of the famous meet-
ing between Henry VIII. and Francis I.; and
it appears to me that we recognise again the
admirable language of Shakspeare, of which in
the three parts of Henry VI., and even in Ri-
chard III., we had nearly lost sight.
“ Norf. *T'wixt Guynes and Arde:
I was then present, saw ’em salute on horseback,
Beheld ’em when they lighted, how they clung,
In their embracement, as they grew together ;
Which, had they, what four thron’d ones could have
weigh’d
Such a compounded one?
Buck. All the whole time
I was my chamber’s prisoner.
Norf. Then you lost
The view of earthly glory. Men might say
Till this time pomp was single, but now marry’d
To one above itself. Each following day
Became the next day’s master, till the last
Made former wonders its. ‘To-day the French
All clinquant, all in gold, like heathen gods,
* Thomas Howard, second duke, the Surry of the last
play, son of Richard’s duke, who was killed at Bos-
worth. ‘This Thomas was created duke in 1514, and
died in 1524. Collins, i.64,
+ Edward Stafford, third duke, son of the duke who
appears in Richard IT]J., Banks, ii. 525.
HENRY VIII. 121
Shone down the English ; and to-morrow they
Made Britain, India. Every man that stood
Show’d like a mine. Their dwarfish pages were
As cherubims, all gilt; the madams, too,
Not us’d to toil, did almost sweat to bear
The pride upon them, that their very labour
Was to them as a painting. Now this mask
Was cry’d incomparable ; and th’ ensuing night
Made it a fool and beggar. The two kings,
Equal in lustre, were now best, now worst,
As presence did present them: him in eye,
Still him in praise, and being present both
"T'was said they saw but one, and no discerner
Durst wag his tongue in censure, When these suns,
(For so they phrase them) by their herald’s chal-
leng’d
The noble spirits to arms, they did perform
Beyond thought’s compass: that old fabulous story
(Being now seen possible enough) got credit ;
That Bevis was believed.
Buck. Oh! you go far.
Norf. As I belong to worship, and affect
In honour, honesty ; the tract of every thing
Would by a good discoverer lose some life,
Which action’s self was tongue to. All was royal :
To the disposing of it nought rebell’d ;
Order gave each thing view.”
There is in Holinshed* a very full account of
* Hol., 646; Hal., 604.
VOL. II. G
122 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
this field of the cloth of gold. Various histories
of this gay meeting were probably extant, and
Shakspeare’s forcible description cannot be
traced toone Chronicler in particular. Our poet
appears to have invented Buckingham’s sickness
for the mere purpose of making him listen to
Norfolk’s story, for he is specially mentioned in
the Chronicle as present. *
In this conversation, in which Lord Aberga-
venny+ takes part, there is much complaint of
the expense of this royal-meeting ; and the blame
of devising it, as well as officious intermeddling
in all the arrangements, for
“no man’s pye is freed
From his ambitious finger,”
is laid upon Wolsey. Buckingham is unmea-
sured in his censure and sarcasm; Norfolk, pro-
fessing friendly feelings, warns him that the car-
dinal is a dangerous enemy.
The complaints of the enormous expense
which this expedition caused to those who were
compelled to attend it, of whom
* Hol., 654; Hall, 616.
+ George Neville, third lord. He married Bucking-
ham’s daughter; he is said to have warned the king,
while on his way to the meeting, that Francis was more
numerously attended than he. The present earl is his
lineal male representative. Collins, v. 162.
HENRY VIII. 123
** many
Have broke their backs with laying harness on them
For this great journey,”
are taken from the Chronicle ; which also repre-
sents Buckingham as incensing the displeasure
of Wolsey by his complaints.*
The political bearings of the meeting are dis-
cussed in the play.
“* Buck. What did this great vanity
But minister communication of
A most poor issue ?
Norf. Grievingly, I think,
The peace between the French and us not values
The cost that did conclude it.”
And,
‘France hath flaw’d the league, and hath attach’d
Our merchants’ goods at Bourdeaux.
Aberg. Is it therefore
Th’ ambassador is silene’d ?
Norf. Marry is’t.”
A new treaty between France and England
was the result of the meeting of the kings, by
which Francis stipulated to pay annually
100,000 crowns to Henry.t I know not whether
Shakspeare meant this by the peace which was
* Hol., iii. 644.
+ Lingard, vi. 50; Rymer, xiii. 719.
GA
124 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
not worth its cost; but as the money was not
paid punctually, the remark might have been
fairly made. A league* had been made a
few years before between Henry, Charles, and
Francis, which was certainly “ flaw’d” by a de-
claration of war between the two latter; and, in
1523, the King of France sequestered English
goods at Bourdeaux, and the French ambassa-
dor was consequently ‘“‘ commanded to keep his
house.” This French aggression appears to have
arisen immediately out of Henry’s resenting the
support given by France to the Duke of Albany
in Scotland; but Henry was, during the whole
of this time, plotting against France. Of these
plots Francis had probably sufficient informa-
tion to account for, and perhaps to justify, his
hostile measures.
Buckingham accuses the cardinal of being
bribed by the emperor to break the peace be-
tween England and France. I find no autho-
rity for the accusation of Wolsey by the duke ;
but as the cardinal had received, at the hand of
Charles, some valuable preferment in Spain, t
and hoped for his interest towards attaining the
papacy, it was not unnatural that he should be
* Oct. 1518; Lingard, 39; Rymer, xiii. 626.
+ Hol., 676; Hall, 633; Lingard, 60, 62.
t Mackintosh’s Life of Wolsey, i. 14].
HENRY VIII. 125
suspected .of a bias towards the Austrian in-
terest.
Shakspeare follows his authority,* and the
general belief, in ascribing to Wolsey the pro-
ceedings against Buckingham, who is now ar-
rested for high treason ;+ which event occurred
in April 1521, some time before the proceedings
at Bourdeaux, which he mentions in the play.
The duke being accused, was summoned from
Gloucestershire to London, and there arrested
and conveyed to the Tower, without previous
intimation. Hall says, that he discovered, when
at Windsor in his way up, that he was a priso-
ner ; that he went in his barge to call upon Wol-
sey at York-house, but was told that the cardinal
was sick; that he nevertheless landed, and went
to the cellar to drink, but was very ill received ;
and, when he had returned to his barge, was
arrested and conveyed to the Tower; some of
his followers had been previously apprehended.
* Hol., 658; Hall, 622.
+ Acti. Se.3. He is styled Duke of Buckingham,
and Earl of Hereford, Stafford, and Northampton. He
was Earl of Stafford by paternal descent. He assumed
Hereford, and perhaps Northampton, as representative
of the Bohuns; from whom the present Viscount Here-
ford is descended. { Lingard, 54.
§ In the play, the duke is arrested by Brandon. His
name does not occur in the Chronicles, Sir Henry
126 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
But Shakspeare interrupts these proceedings
to introduce Queen Catherine, who comes to
represent to the king—
*« the subjects’ grief
Comes through commissions, which compel from each
The sixth part of his substance, to be levied
Without delay.”
She charges this exaction especially upon
Wolsey,* who avers that what was done was the
act of the privy council and judges. Henry dis-
claims all knowledge of the affair, and chal-
lenges his minister to produce a precedent, and
directs the commission to be recalled, which
order Wolsey thus cunningly executes :
‘* Let there be letters writ to every shire
Of the king’s grace and pardon. The griev’d com-
mons
Hardly conceive of me ; let it be nois’d
That through our intercession this revokement
And pardon comes.”
This commission to ascertain every man’s pro-
perty is from Holinshed :—
‘“« Order was taken by the cardinal that the true
Marne, or Marney, captain of the king’s guard, made
the arrest.
* Mrs. Jameson says (p. 256) this is true to history. I
know not where she found it.
HENRY VIII. 127
value of all men’s substance might be known, and he
would have every man sworn to have uttered the true
valuation of that they were worth, and required the
tenth part thereof to be granted towards the king’s
charges, now in his wars, in like case as the spi-
ritualty had granted a fourth part, and were content
to live on the other three parts.*
This was in 1523. I rather think it was of a
later proceeding that Holinshed says, in report-
ing what followed upon the rebellion in Suffolk,
“ The king then came to Westminster to the car-
dinal’s palace, and assembled there a great council, in
the which he openly protested that his mind was never
to ask anything of his commons that might lead to the
breach of his laws ; wherefore he willed to know, by
whose means the commissions were so strictly given
forth to demand the sixth part of every man’s goods.
The cardinal excused himself and said, that when it
was moved in council how to levy money to the king’s
use, the king’s council, and namely the judges, said
that he might lawfully demand any sum by commis-
sion, and that by consent of the whole council it was
done ; and took God to witness that he never desired
the hindrance of the commons, but, like a true coun-
sellor, desired how to enrich the king. The king,
indeed, was much offended that his commons were
thus entreated, and thought it touched his honour
* Hol., 680; Hall, 630.
128 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
that his council should attempt such a doubtful mat-
ter in his name, and to be denied both of the spiri-
tualty and temporality. Therefore he would no more
of that trouble, but caused letters to be sent into all
shires, that the matter should no further be talked
of; and he pardoned all them that had denied the
demand, openly or secretly. The cardinal, to deliver
himself of the evil will of the commons, purchased
by procuring and advancing of this demand, affirmed
and caused it to be bruited abroad, that through his
intercession the king had pardoned and released all
things.’’*
Shakspeare is thus justified by his usual au-
thority in this scene, as to the exactions from
the people, and Wolsey’s ministerial finesse ; but
not so in the introduction of the queen. Itisa
gratuitous addition, which must have been made,
not for political, but for dramatic reasons.
Though it is probable that the obnoxious
commission was devised by Wolsey, it is not so
that the king was ignorant of the proceeding.
But if undue praise has been ascribed to Henry,
Hall is to be blamed, not Shakspeare.
Our poet has put sentiments into Wolsey’s
mouth, which are generally just, though not ap-
plicable to the particular case.
* Hol., 710; Hall, 700; see Grove, iii. 235, 347;
Hallam’s Const. Hist., i. 25, 32.
HENRY VLIL. 129
“Tf I’m traduc’d by tongues which neither know
My faculties nor person, yet will be
The chroniclers of my doing; let me say,
’Tis but the fate of place, and the rough brake
That virtue must go through: we must not stint
Our necessary actions, in the fear
To cope malicious censures ; which ever,
As ray’nous fishes do a vessel follow
That is new trimm’d, but benefit no further
Than vainly longmg. What we oft do best,
By sick interpreters, or weak ones, is
Not ours, or not allowed: what worst, as oft
Hitting a grosser quality, is cried up
For our best act: if we stand still, in fear
Our motion will be mock’d or carp’d at.
We should take root here where we sit,
Or sit state-statues only.”
Shakspeare is justified by Holinshed, * in
ascribing to Wolsey the proceedings against
Buckingham ; Holinshed does not in this case
copy Hall,+ but Polydore Vergil,t whose testi-
mony, especially as to Wolsey, is to be received
with great caution.§ It is probable that Buck-
ingham, as a peer of an ancient family, was
jealous of the proud and powerful churchman,
* P.657. See Lingard, vi. 53.
+ P. 662. t P. 665 of edit. 1556.
§ See Grove, ii. 171; iv. 348. Polydore had been a
disgusting flatterer of the cardinal.
c 3
130 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
and also that the duke could not have been tried
for treason, without the approbation of the
minister; but there is no historical evidence for
tracing either the trial or the accusation to per-
sonal causes.* I find, however, in the deposi-
tions,+ the charge most likely to excite Wol-
sey’s wrath :—
*« Adding further,
That had the king in his sickness fail’d,
The cardinal’s and Sir Thomas Lovell’s heads
Should have gone off.’’{
It was deposed, moreover, that he listened to
prophecies that he should become king after the
death of Henry. There is no mention of the
intention to “ put his knife” into the king. All
that he said was, that if committed to the Tower,
he should have had ten thousand men to deliver
him. But that story was among the articles of
charge. ||
Buckingham was now the next heir to Henry,
in the Beaufort branch of the Lancastrian line,
and next legitimate representative of Edward
III., after the children of Clarence.
* See, on the contrary, Grove’s note on Henry VIII.
p. 26. .
+ Galt’s App. xxiv. t Hol., 661.
|| State Trials, 287; from Lord Herbert.
HENRY VIII. 131
Of Buckingham’s dying speech,* the whole
merit, I believe, belongs to Shakspeare; Hall
only tell us, that
** He said he had offended the king’s grace through
negligence and lack of grace, and desired all noble-
men to beware by him, and all men to pray for him,
and that he trusted to die the king’s true man.’’+
This is amplified by Shakspeare into a moving
and impressive speech.
** All good people,
You that thus far have come to pity me,
Hear what I say, and then go home, and lose me.
I have this day receiv’d a traitor’s judgment,
And by that name must die ; yet, Heav’n bear witness,
And if I have a conscience let it sink me,
Eyen as the axe falls, if I be not faithful !
The law I bear no malice for my death,
*T has done, upon the premises, but justice ;
But those that sought it I could wish more Chris-
tians :
Be what they will, I heartily forgive them ;
Yet, let them look they glory not in mischief,
Nor build their evils on the graves of great men,
For then, my guiltless blood must cry against them.
For further life in this world I ne’er hope,
Nor will I sue, although the king have mercies,
* Actii. Se. 2. + Hall, 642, and Hol., 662.
132 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
More than I dare make faults. Ye few that lov’d me,
And dare be bold to weep for Buckingham,
His noble friends and fellows, whom to leave
Is only bitter to him, only dying,
Go with me, like good angels to my end,
And as the long divorce of steel falls on me.
Make of your prayers one sweet sacrifice,
And lift my soul to heaven.—Lead on, o’ God’s name!
Lovell. 1 do beseech your grace, for charity,
If ever any malice in your heart,
Were hid against me, now forgive me frankly.
Buck. Sir Thomas Lovell, I as free forgive you,
As I would be forgiven : I forgive all.
There cannot be those numberless offences
*Gainst me, that I can’t take peace with: no black
envy
Shall make my grave. Commend me to his grace,
And if. he speak of Buckingham, pray tell him,
You met him half in heaven ; my vows and prayers
Yet are the king’s; and till my soul forsake me,
Shall cry for blessings on him ;—may he live
Longer than I have time to tell his years!
Ever beloved, and loving, may his rule be ;
And when old Time shall lead him to his end,
Goodness and he fill up one monument !”
Sir Nicholas Vaux orders a barge to be got
ready, with “ such furniture as suits the great-
ness of his person.”
HENRY VIII. 133
«« Buck. Nay, Sir Nicholas,
Let it alone, my state now will but mock me.
When I came hither, I was Lord High Constable,
And Duke of Buckingham,—now poor Edward Staf-
ford,*
Yet I am richer than my base accusers,
That never knew what truth meant: I now seal it,
And with that blood, will make them one day groan
for’t.
My noble father, Henry of Buckingham,
Who first rais’d hand against usurping Richard,
Flying for succour to his servant Banister,
Being distress’d, was by that wretch betray’d,
And without trial fell ;f God’s peace be with him!
Henry the Seventh succeeding, truly pitying
My father’s loss, like a most noble prince
Restor’d to me my honours, and out of ruins
Made my name once more noble. Now his son,
Henry the Eighth, life, honour, name, and all
That made me happy, at one stroke has taken
For ever from the world. I had my trial,
And must needs say, a noble one ; which makes me
A little happier than my wretched father :
Yet thus far we are one in fortunes,—both
Fell by our servants ; by those men we lov’d most.
* In Shakspeare, as in Holinshed, the name is Bohun.
See notet in p.125. The present Viscount Stafford is
descended in the female line from this unfortunate duke,
+ Lingard, v. 259.
184 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
A most unnatural and faithless service !
Heaven has an end in all. Yet, you that hear me,
This from a dying man receive as certain :
Where you are liberal of your loves and councils,
Be sure you be not loose ; for those you make friends,
And give your hearts to, when they once perceive
The least rub in your fortunes, fall away
Like water from ye, never found again
But when they mean to sink ye. All good people,
Pray for me! I must now forsake ye: the last hour
Of my long weary life is come upon me.
Farewell !
And when you would say something that is sad,
Speak how I fell.—I’ve done, and God forgive me !”
We have now a scene of gossiping conversa-
tion between the Lord Chamberlain,* Lord
Sands,t and Sir Thomas Lovell.t They talk of
the introduction of French manners and dress
into England, by those who had been engaged in
the late expeditions to France, and a proclama-
“ Charles Somerset, the first of that name, Earl of
Worcester: natural son of Henry Beaufort, third Duke
of Somerset, and ancestor of the Duke of Beaufort,
He was Lord Chamberlain for life, and died in 1526.
Collins, i. 224.
+ The person here intended is Sir William Sands, who
was not created Lord Sands until 1523, at the soonest.
Nic., ii. 571. t See p. 106, and Collins, viii. 350.
HENRY VIII. 135
tion is announced by Lovell, of which the ob-
ject is—
‘** The reformation of our travell’d gallants,
That fill the court with quarrels, talk, and tailors.
Chamb. I’m glad ’tis there: now I would pray our
monsieurs
To think an English courtier may be wise,
And never see the Louvre.
Lovell. They must either
(For so run the conditions), ‘ leave those remnants
Of fool and feather that they got in France,
With all their honourable points of ignorance
Pertaining thereunto, as fights and fireworks ;
Abusing better men than they can be,
Out of a foreign wisdom ; clean renouncing
The faith they have in tennis and tall stockings,
Short-bolster’d breeches, and those types of travel,
And understand again like honest men ;’
Or pack to their old playfellows: there, I take it,
They may, cum privilegio, wear away
The lag-end of their lewdness, and be laugh’d at.”
I can nowhere trace this proclamation, or the
cause of it. There were about this time many
quarrels between strangers and nations; but I
hear of no imitation. And in this reign, as in
several preceding, laws were made for regulating
the dress of the several ranks of people, and the
prohibition is in some instances of foreign arti-
186 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.,
cles ;* but for any peculiar law or order against
French manners or dresses, I can find no autho-
rity, though I suspect that Sir Thomas Lovell’s
news had a foundation somewhere.
Shakspeare places, in the midst of the pro-
ceedings against this duke, who was beheaded
on the 17th May 1521,+ an entertainment?
given by Wolsey, so grand as to be noticed in
history.§ The incidents of this banquet are to
be found in Cavendish’s Life of Wolsey, and
in Stow,|| with this slight variation; that Wol-
sey did not at once discover the king among the
maskers, but picked out Sir Edward Neville by
mistake.
If this banquet were placed at its proper time
by Shakspeare, his introduction of Anne Boleyn
would have been an anachronism. In 1521,
Anne was a girl of fifteen or sixteen years old,
resident at the court of Claude, the queen of
Francis I. She did not return till 1522, when
she became maid of honour to Queen Catherine.4
It is recorded that, at an entertainment given by
the king himself in May, 1527, Anne Boleyn
was the partner of Henry; but it is highly im-
* See Strutt’s Dresses, i. 229.
t+ Lingard, 55. t Acti. Se. 4.-
§ In Wordsworth’s Eccl, Biog., i. 319.
|] P. 504. §] Lingard, 111.
HENRY VIII. 137
probable that this was, as Shakspeare makes it,
the period of her first captivation of the heart of
Henry.* The balls which Wolsey gave, were
for the express purpose of pleasing the king and
his favourite lady.
Cavendish, after relating the rupture of
Anne’s engagement to Lord Percy, by the in-
terference of Wolsey at the king’s command,
tells us that
‘Mistress Anne Boleyn was revoked unto the
court, whereat she flourished after in great estima-
tion and favour, having always a privy grudge against
my Lord Cardinal for breaking off the contract made
between my Lord Percy and her, supposing it had
been his devised will and none other, nor yet know-
ing the king’s secret mind thoroughly, who had great
affection unto her, more than she knew. But after
she knew the king’s pleasure, and the bottom of his
secret stomach, then she began to look very haughty
and stout, lacking no manner of jewels or rich ap-
parel, that might be gotten for money. It was there-
* « Fumes chez la reine, on l’ondansa; et M. de Tu-
renne, par le commandement dudid Seigneur Roi, dansa
avec Madame la Princesse, et le Roi avec Mistress Bul-
len qui a été nourrie en France, avec la feue reine.”
Journal, 5 May. MS. de Brienne, quoted by Lingard,
118. ‘This way of describing Anne is hardly consistent
with the supposed notoriety of an attachment previously
subsisting.
138 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
fore judged by and by through the court, of every
man, that she being in such fayour might work mas-
teries with the king, and obtain any suit of him for
her friend.” *
The great lords of the court, he tells us, who
were jealous of Wolsey, consulted often with
Anne Boleyn how to lower Wolsey in the king’s
estimation ; but the cardinal,
“‘espying the great zeal that the king had conceived
in this gentlewoman, ordered himself to please as
well the king as her, dissembling the matter that lay
hid in his breast; prepared great banquets and high
feasts to entertain the king and her at his own house;
and thus the world began to grow to wonderful in-
ventions, not heard of before in this realm. Love
betwixt the king and this gorgeous lady grew to
such a perfection, that divers imaginations were ima-
gined, whereof I leave here to speak.” *
The first mention in the play of the project
for divorcing Queen Catherine, is in a conversa-
tion among persons assembled on the occasion
of Buckingham’s execution.
“2d Gent. Did you not of late days hear
A buzzing of a separation
Between the king and Catherine ?
lst Gent. Yes, but it held not:
For when the king once heard it, out of anger,
* Cav., 369, * Pp, 371.
HENRY VIII. 139
He sent command to the Lord Mayor straight
To stop the rumour, and allay those tongues
That durst disperse it.
2d Gent. But that slander, sir,
Is found a truth now;; for it grows again _
Fresher than e’er it was, and held for certain
The king will venture it. Either the cardinal,
Or some about him near, have (out of malice
To the good queen) possess’d him with a scruple,
That will undo her: to confirm this, too,
Cardinal Campeius is arrived, and lately,
As all think, for this business.
lst Gent. ’Tis the cardinal ;
And merely to revenge him on the emperor,
For not bestowing on him, at his asking,
Th’ archbishopric of Toledo, this is purposed.”
These rumours are mentioned too soon. Buck-
ingham was executed in 1521. The first men-
tion of the rumours of a separation is assigned
by Hall to the year 1527. Meanwhile Wolsey’s
politics had changed : he now no longer espoused
the cause of the emperor, but sought the alliance
of France. It was the belief of the time, that he
entertained a project for marrying Henry to Mar-
garet, Duchess of Alencgon, sister of Francis I.,
and subsequently to Renée, the sister of his
wife. *
* Hall, 728; Hol., 736; Pol. Verg., p. 686. But see
Lingard, 380.
140 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE
In the next scene,* the preceding topics are
handled by the Lord Chamberlain,+ Norfolk, +
and Suffolk. §
“* Chamb. I left him private,
Full of sad thoughts and troubles,
Norf. What's the cause?
Chamb. It seems the marriage with his brother’s
wife
Has crept too near his conscience.
Suff. No; his conscience has crept too near ano-
ther lady.
Norf. ’Tis so.
This is the cardinal’s doing.
* Actii. Se. 3.
+ There were two Lord Chamberlains during the
period of this play. Worcester died in 1524, before the
divorce was talked of. Lord Sands succeeded him, and
he alone could have been a party in these conversations.
Our poet confounds the two.
{ The duke who presided at the trial of Buckingham
was the second duke, of whom we have already heard;
he died in 1524, some years before the arrival of Car-
dinal Campeggio. Shakspeare has therefore confounded
him with his son and successor Thomas, the third duke.
Collins, i. 85.
§ Charles Brandon (son of Sir William Brandon, slain
at Bosworth), the first duke, who married Mary, the
king’s sister, widow of Louis XII. of France. I think
that the Duke of Northumberland is his representative,
through Lady Catherine Grey, and other females.
Banks, iii. 684.
HENRY VIII. 14]
Now he has crack’d the league
Tween us and the emperor, the queen’s great
nephew,*
He dives into the king’s soul, and then scatters
Doubts, dangers, wringing of the conscience,
Fears, and despair; and all these for his marriage.
Chamb. . . . All that dare
Look into these affairs, see his main end,—
The French king’s sister’
We have now the king with “ Wolsey and
Cardinal Campeius, the pope’s legate, with a
commission.”
‘“Wols. Your grace has given a precedent of
wisdom
Above all princes, in committing freely
Your scruple to the voice of Christendom.
Who can be angry now? what envy reach you?
The Spaniard, ty’d by blood and favour to her,
Must now confess, if they have any goodness,
The trial just and noble. All the clerks,
I mean the learned ones, in Christian kingdoms,
Have their free voices. Rome, the nurse of judg-
ment,
Invited by your noble self, has sent
One general tongue unto us—this good man,
This just and learned priest, Cardinal Campeius.
* Charles V.—not a great-nephew, but a nephew who
is great.—See Robertson, in works, iv. 221,
142 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Camp. . . . To your highness’ hand
I.tender my commission ; by whose virtue
(The court of Rome commanding), you, my lord,
Cardinal of York, are joined with me, their servant,
In the impartial judging of this business.”
‘The king appoints Blackfriars for the trial of
the case, and sends Gardiner* to acquaint the
queen. Ona subsequent occasion, Henry gives
this account of the origin of his scruples: ad-
dressing Wolsey, he says,
“© You ever
Have wished the sleeping of this business ; never
Desir’d it to be stirr’d, but oft have hindered
The passages made tow’rds it.
My conscience first received a tenderness,
Scruple, and prick, on certain speeches utter’d
By the Bishop of Bayonne, then French ambassador;
Who had been hither sent on the debating
A marriage ’twixt the Duke of Orleans and
Our daughter Mary. I’ th’ progress of this business,
Ere a determinate resolution, he
(I mean the bishop) did require a respite ;
Wherein he might the king his lord advertise,
Whether our daughter were legitimate,
Respecting this our marriage with the dowager,
Sometime our brother’s wife.”
* The celebrated Stephen G., afterwards Bishop of
Winchester.
HENRY VIII. 143
He then says, that he began to regard it as a
sign of God’s displeasure, that no male child
of Catherine lived; that he then imparted his
scruples to the Bishop of Lincoln,* who advised
him to take the course which he did take; and
desired the Archbishop of Canterbury} to sum-
mon the court by which the question was to be
considered.
Such is Shakspeare’s account of the proceed-
ings prior to “the triai,” with the exception of
the dates, of which I have noticed the confusion.
It is taken faithfully from Holinshed ;—
«“You have heard how the people talked, a little
before the cardinal’s going over to France the last
year, that the king was told by Dr. Longland, Bishop
of Lincoln, and others, that his marriage with Queen
Catherine could not be good nor lawful. The truth
is, that, whether this doubt was first moved by the
cardinal, or by the said Longland, being the king’s
confessor, the king was not only put in doubt, whe-
ther it was a lawful marriage or no; but also deter-
mined to have the case examined, cleared, and
adjudged by learning, law, and sufficient authority.
The cardinal verily was put in most blame for this
scruple, now cast into the king’s conscience, for the
* John Longland, who became bishop in 1520.
+ William Warham.
144 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
hate he bare to the emperor, because he would not
grant to him the archbishopric of Toledo.” *
This Chronicler is not very clear, as to the
origin of the question of the divorce, for he had
already mentioned+ (as Henry does in the play),
that it was first raised by the Bishop of Bayonne,
when treating of the marriage of the Duke of
Orleans with the Princess Mary, who, if Cathe-
rine’s marriage was not good, was not the legi-
timate daughter of the king.
It might seem, from the introduction of Anne
Boleyn captivating the king, previously to the
first hint of the intended separation from Ca-
therine, that Shakspeare intended to represent
Henry’s love for the maid of honour as the
original cause of the divorce; but I think the
general impression conveyed by the subsequent
scenes is, that there was a bond fide scruple.
Indeed, the play, in leaving doubtful the rela-
tion between the divorce and the king’s attach-
ment to Anne Boleyn, is more consistent with
the history, as imperfectly known to us, than it
could have been if more precision had been
assumed.
The story of the French bishop is doubtful,
* Hol., 719, 736; Hall, 753.
+ P. 714, but not from Hall.
HENRY VIII. 145
because it is not confirmed by the French re-
cords;* it was too important a point in the
negotiation to be left unnoticed in the official
report.
We may safely take the authority of Hall+
for the existence of a rumour of an intended
separation previously to Wolsey’s departure for
France in July, 1527; and we now know, from
Wolsey’s correspondence, that the matter had
been then discussed between the king and _ his
minister. But this rumour was not, so far as I
know, connected with Anne Boleyn. Upon the
sole authority of Cardinal Pole, Lingard be-
lieves, against all probability, that Anne herself
infused the scruples.into the mind of her lover,
and sent learned men to support them.{ And
the desire of this generally fair historian to make
the beautiful maid of honour the cause of the
reformation, leads him to assign an unauthorized
date to the loves of Henry and Anne.§ I agree
* Lingard, 378. Pole Las
t Lingard, vi., note in p.113, where the pros and
cons are otherwise fairly stated.
§ Lingard, note* in p.113, and ¢ in 157. A letter
from Henry to Anne (Hearne’s Avesbury, p. 360), men-
tions his being employed upon his book, and must have
been written in Dec, 1527, or Jan. 1528; another letter
(p. 350), speaks of the attachment having lasted more
than a year. Lingard assumes, apparently upon no
VOL. Il. H
146 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
with Turner,* that there is no evidence of the
existence of this attachment before 1527, pre-
viously to May, in which year, the king pre-
vented the marriage with Percy. How long
before May 1527 (when Northumberland died),
the interview between Wolsey and the father of
the young man occurred, we cannot ascertain ;
it may have been many months before. ‘The
latest possible date would not be inconsis-
tent with Cavendish’s+ averment, that Wolsey
was aware of the attachment before he went
abroad. But if any reliance is to be placed
(which I much doubt) upon the arrangement
of passages in Cavendish, Henry’s intention to
marry Anne had been avowed to Wolsey before
the battle of Pavia; and the cardinal’s objections
ending in the suggestion of a reference to divines
and canonists, connect the plan of a divorce with
that intention.
“The long-hid and secret love that was between
the king and Mistress Anne Boleyn brake now out,
other ground than that of the one letter being numbered
16, and the other 4, that the letter to which he can
assign no date, must have been written before that
which he fixes by the book. Surely, the allocation of
letters in a printed book furnishes no proof of date. I
do not contradict Lingard; I only affirm that his opi-
nion is not supported by the evidence which he offers.
* Henry VIII., 3d edit., p. 195. i ae tS
HENRY VIII. 147
and the matter was by the king disclosed to my lord
cardinal, whose persuasions upon his knees long time
before to the king to the contrary would not serve :
the king was so affectioned, that his will bare place,
and discretion was banished clean for the time. My
lord being provoked to declare his opinion and wis-
dom in the advancement of his desired purpose,
thought it not meet to wade too far alone, or to give
him hasty judgment or advice in so weighty a matter,
but desired of the king licence to ask counsel of men
of ancient study and famous learning, both in the
divine and civil law.” *
The two dates, of the scruple and the love,
are both too uncertain to be brought into com-
parison. The mystery is too dense to be cleared
up in a work like this.
Whatever may have been the period of Henry’s
attachment to Anne Boleyn, or of his avowal of
it, it is certain that at the end of the year 1529,
some months after the process before the legates
in the case of Queen Catherine, the young lady
was in acknowledged favour at court; for she
began at that time to receive rich articles of
dress from the royal wardrobe, sometimes money,
and presents of various sorts from the king, and
from the courtiers; and she occasionally played
* Cay. 416, The battle of Pavia, which occurred in
Feb, 1525, is narrated in p. 376.
H 2
148 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
at cards with Henry. All this is collected from
the account of Henry’s privy purse expences,
which shew that at three years she received
articles of clothing of the value of £468 6s. 1d.*
The scene} between Anne and the old lady is
of course imaginary; there is no reason to be-
lieve that the young lady even pretended an
aversion to rank and dignity: we have seen, on
the other hand, that she readily assumed the
station of a favourite; but it is admitted, even
by an enemy,{ that she refused to receive Henry
on any other than an honourable footing. But
the grant of the title of marchioness is misplaced.
It was not made until September 1532, a few
months before Anne’s marriage, and long after
the trial at Blackfriars, which occurred at the
commencement of 1529, after a long interval
spent in negotiations with the pope, which I
cannot detail here.
In his account of that proceeding, Shakspeare
follows Holinshed,§ even in the justly celebrated
speech of Catherine ;—
* Sir Harris Nicolas’s Privy Purse Expences of
Henry VIIT. Introd. xxxii.
t Actii. Sc. 4.
t Pole, in Lingard, 112. This cardinal mentions the
fact with something very like a sneer.
§ P. 737.
HENRY VIII. 149
‘* Sir, I desire you do me right and justice ;
And to bestow your pity on me; for
I am a most poor woman, and a stranger,
Born out of your dominions; having here
No judge indiff’rent, and no more assurance
Of equal friendship and proceeding. Alas! sir,
In what have I offended you ? what cause
Hath my behaviour given to your displeasure,
That thus you should proceed to put me off,
And take your good grace from me? Heav’n wit-
ness,
I’ve been to you a true and humble wife,
At all times to your will conformable :
Ever in fear to kindle your dislike :
Yea, subject to your count’nance ; glad or sorry,
As I saw it inclin’d. When was the hour
I ever contradicted your desire,
Or made it not mine too? Which of your friends
Have I not strove to love, although I knew
He were mine enemy? What friend of mine
That had to him deriv’d your anger, did I
Continue in my liking? nay, gave notice
He was from thence discharg’d? Sir, call to mind,
That I have been your wife, in this obedience,
Upwards of twenty years; and have been bless’d
With many children by you. If in the course
And process of this time you can report,
And prove it too, against mine honour aught,
My bond of wedlock, or my love and duty,
150 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Against your sacred person ; in God’s name,
Turn me away ; and let the foul’st contempt
Shut door upon me, and so give me up
To th’ sharpest kind of justice. Please you, sir,
The king, your father, was reputed for
A prince most prudent, of an excellent
And unmatch’d wit and judgment. Ferdinand,
My father, King of Spain, was reckon’d one
The wisest prince that there had reign’d, by many
A year before. It is not to be question’d
That they had gathered a wise council to them
Of ev’ry realm, that did debate this business,
Who deem’d our marriage lawful. Wherefore,
humbly,
Sir, I beseech you spare me, till I may
Be by my friends in Spain advis’d ; whose counsel
I will implore. If not, i’ th’ name of God,
Your pleasure be fulfill’d !”
For this appropriate and touching appeal,
there is the contemporary authority of Caven-
dish ;* notwithstanding that Hall+ tells us, that
the queen did not speak a word in this open
court; and that Polydore Vergilt does not
ascribe to her any discourse, except a vehement
inculpation of Wolsey.§ But some of the pro-
* P.424; Stow, 542. + P.756. ¢. P. 688,
§ Burnet says (Hist. Ref., iii. 80) that the king and
queen never appeared in the court; but see Lingard, 151.
HENRY VIII. 15]
ceedings judiciously introduced by the drama-
tist into this scene, occurred at Bridewell (then
a palace), some time before, when the king ad-
dressed ‘the nobility, judges, and counsellors,
with divers other persons,”* in a speech from
which Shakspeare took
** My Lord Cardinal,
I do excuse you; yea, upon mine honour,
I free you from’t. You are not to be taught
That you have many enemies, that know not
Why they are so, but like to village curs,
Bark when their fellows do: by some of these
The Queen is put in anger. You are excused ;
But will you be more justified ? You ever
Have wished the sleeping of this. business ;
Never desired it to be stirred.” f
And then follows a history of the rise and
progress of the royal scruples.
It was also at Bridewell that the two cardi-
nals came to the Queen (the ground of a subse-
quent scenet in the play), when she addressed
them, according to Hall,§ in a speech which he
took from the notes of Cardinal Campeggio’s
secretary.
Catherine’s speech, in Hall, ascribes Wolsey’s
* Cav. 426. + Act ii. Se. 4.
t Actiii. Se, 1, § P, 755,
152 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
hostility to the emperor’s denial of support in
his ambitious designs upon the popedom; I
know not why this topic is omitted.
The Chronicles are followed in the character
which Henry gives to his wife ;—*
‘Go thy ways, Kate !
That man 7’ th’ world who shall report he has
A better wife, let him in nought be trusted,
For speaking false in that. Thou art, alone,—
If thy rare qualities, sweet gentleness,
Thy meekness saint-like, wife-like government,
Obeying in commanding, and thy parts,
Sovereign and pious else, could speak thee out,—
The queen of earthly queens. She is nobly born,
And like her true nobility she has
Carried herself towards me.”
There is the same authority for Wolsey’s ap-
peal to the king against the queen’s imputation
of the projected divorce to his contrivances ; and
in Catherine’s rejection of Wolsey’s attempt to
address her in Latin ; and she did appeal, as in
the play, to the pope himself.
At the end of the second act, we have the
first symptoms of Henry’s discontent with Wol-
sey: it appears from a letter lately published,t
* Hol., 738; Cav., 426; Stow, 542.
+ July 1, 1527. St. Pap., i. 194.
HENRY VIII. 153
that Henry’s doubts of Wolsey’s zeal for the
divorce were entertained at an early period. It
is doubtful whether Wolsey at any time enter-
tained the project with the view in which his
master, either in the beginning or at an early
period, chiefly regarded it. Wolsey might have
a scheme for allying Henry, matrimonially as
well as politically, with France; but he had no
object in getting rid of Catherine for the purpose
of substituting Anne. Whatever might be the
cause, the two cardinals did assuredly offend
Henry by their procrastination.
At the end of this act, the name of a new and
important person is introduced; and the first
notice given of the king’s opposition to the papal
authority.
“« | may perceive
These cardinals trifle with me; I abhor
This dilatory sloth, and tricks of Rome.
My learned and well-beloved servant, Cranmer,
Pr’ythee return! With thy approval, I know,
My comfort comes along !”
It is probable that Shakspeare took this refe-
rence to Cranmer from tradition, but he has
ante-dated it.
Cranmer was not at this time known to the
king, nor was he now out of England. Soon
after this time, he met with Fox and Gardiner
H 3
154 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
in the country, and gave his opinion that the
question of marriage might be decided by native
authorities.* He wrote a book to prove his
position, and hence his employment by the king
and subsequent preferment.
The first scene of the third act gives the in-
terview between the cardinals and the queen, to
which I have already alluded ; it is almost para-
phrased from Holinshed and his authorities ; for
instance :
“« My lord, I thank you for your good will, but to
make you answer to your request I cannot so suddenly.
for I am set among my maids at work, thinking
full little of any such matter, wherein there needeth
a longer deliberation, and better head than mine, te
make answer; for I need counsel in this case which
touched me so near, and for any counsel or friend-
ship that I can find in England, they are not for my
profit ;—”
‘“‘ My lords, I thank you both for your good wills ;
Ye speak like honest men : (pray God ye prove so!)
But how to make ye suddenly an answer
In such a point of weight, so near mine honour
(More near my life, I fear), with my weak wit,
And to such men of gravity and learning,
In truth, I know not. I was set at work
Among my maids ; full little, God knows, looking
* See Burnet, i., 144: but whence?
HENRY VIII. 155
Either for such men, or such business.
For his sake that I have been (for I feel
The last thing that I have been), good your graces,
Let me have time and counsel for my cause.
Alas! I am a woman, friendless, hopeless.
Can you think, lords,
That any Englishman dare give me counsel ?
Or be a known friend, ’gainst his highness’ pleasure ?”’
We now approach another of the great events
of this play—the disgrace of Wolsey. Norfolk,*
Suffolk, Surry, and the lord chamberlain, are
introduced,+ congratulating each other on the
declining influence of the cardinal. And he is
in disgrace, says Suffolk, because
“ The cardinal’s letters to the pope miscarried,
And came to the eye of the king ; wherein was read,
How that the cardinal did entreat his holiness
To stay the judgment of the divorce.”
This incident is not in Holinshed, nor do I
know where Shakspeare found it, or whence
* There isa confusion here. The present Norfolk is
the former Surry, No Surry was concerned in these
proceedings. That title was now borne by Henry
Howard, the celebrated and literary earl, now a lad of
thirteen years old. Collins, i. 93.
+ Actiii, Se. 2.
156 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
comes the story of the inventory delivered by
mistake.”’*
But the greatest error in this scene, which
must have occurred, at latest, in 1529, is the
mention of the marriage of Anne Boleyn, and
her intended coronation. The marriage certainly
did not occur before 1533.+
The demand of the great seal by Norfolk and
Suffolk, and Wolsey’s hesitation in delivering it
upon a verbal message, are in Holinshed.t{
Surry (it should be Norfolk) now accuses
Wolsey of the destruction of his father-in-law
Buckingham, with which view, he (Surry) was
sent to Ireland as lord deputy ; and after some
allusions too personal to be repeated, he enume-
rates the articles of charge against the cardi-
nal :—
“ Surry. First, that without the king’s assent or
knowledge,
You wrote to be a legate; by which pow’r
You maim’d the jurisdiction of all bishops.
Norf. 'Then, that in all you writ to Rome, or else,
To foreign princes, go et Rex meus
Was still inscrib’d ; in which you brought the king
To be your servant.
* Steevens (Bosw. 412) points out a story in Holinshed
of a mistake like this committed by Ruthall, Bishop of
Durham.
+ Lingard, 189. t -Pouial:
HENRY VIII. 157
Suf. That, without the knowledge
Either of king or council, when you went
Ambassador to the emperor, you made bold
To carry into Flanders the great seal.
Sur. Item, you sent a large commission
To Gregory de Cassilis, to conclude,
Without the king’s will, or the state’s allowance,
A league between his highness and Ferrara.
Suf. That, out of mere ambition, you have caus’d
Your holy hat to be stamp’d on the king’s coin.
Sur. Then, that you’ve sent innumerable substance
(By what means got I leave to your own conscience),
To furnish Rome, and to prepare the ways
You have for dignities, to the mere undoing
Of all the kingdom.”
These articles are to be found, with some
others, in Holinshed.* ‘They are abridged from
forty-four lengthy charges,t which were some
time afterwards prepared in the House of Lords,
and sent down to the Commons, but came to
nothing.
It may be observed, that the charge of writing
Ego et Rex meus, with which we are familiar,
is erroneously stated. Wolsey, according to the
accusation, gave the king his place, but put
himself too near to him. He wrote, “ The king
=P, 747. t+ Parl. Hist. i. 492.
158 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
and I,” thus making himself a fellow to the
king.*
A new character is now introduced—Thomas
Cromwell. His conversations with Wolsey are
imaginary and very well imagined ; and he is
appropriately produced as the faithful friend of
the cardinal, whom he defended in the House of
Commons against the charges lately noticed.+
Now Cromwell, the falling minister, learns that
Sir Thomas More has already succeeded him as
chancellor ; and that Cranmer, having returned
from abroad, has been installed Archbishop of —
Canterbury. This is right as to More;{ but
Cranmer did not become archbishop until 1532,
when Warham died.
The chronological error respecting Anne
Boleyn’s marriage and public acknowledgment
is repeated by Cromwell. Cavendish imputes to
this young lady a great share in biemect s fall,
and accordingly he says,
“There was the weight that pull’d me down. O
Cromwell!
The king has gone beyond me: all my glories
In that one woman I have lost for ever.
No sun shall ever usher forth mine honours,
Or gild again the noble troops that waited
* Art. 4, + Parl. Hist. i. 501.
{ 25th Oct. 1529. British Statesmen, i. 60.
HENRY VIII. 5 159
Upon my smiles. Go, get thee from me, Cromwell !
I’m a poor fallen man, unworthy now
To be thy lord and master. Seek the king,
(That sun, I pray, may never set!) I’ve told him
What and how true thou art; he will advance thee:
Some little memory of me will stir him
(I know his noble nature), not to let
Thy hopeful service perish too. Good Cromwell,
Neglect him not; make use now and provide
For thine own future safety.
Crom. O my lord!
Must I then leave you? must I needs forego,
So good, so noble, and so true a master?
Bear witness all that have not hearts of iron,
With what a sorrow Cromwell leaves his lord.
The king shall have my service, but my prayers,
For ever and for ever, shall be yours.
Wol. Cromwell, I did not think to shed a tear
In all my miseries: but thou hast fore’d me,
Out of thy honest truth to play the woman.
Let’s dry our eyes, and thus far hear me, Cromwell ;
And when I am forgotten, as I shall be,
And sleep in dull cold marble, where no mention
Of me must more be heard, say that I taught thee—
Say, Wolsey, that once trod the way of glory,
And sounded all the depths and shoals of honour,
Found thee a way out of his wreck, to rise in—
A sure and safe one, though thy master miss’d it.
Mark but my fall, and that which ruin’d me,
160 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition :
By that sin fell the angels. How can man
(The image of his Maker), hope to win by’t?
Love thyself last; cherish those hearts that hate
thee ;
Corruption wins not more than honesty.
Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace,
To silence envious tongues; be just and fear not.
Let all those ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s,
Thy God’s, and truth’s: then, if thou fall’st, O
Cromwell
Thou fall’st a blessed martyr. Serve the king;
And, pry’thee, lead me in—
There, take an inventory of all I have,
To the last penny, ’tis the king’s. My robe,
And my integrity to Heav’n, is all
I dare now call mine own. O Cromwell! Cromwell!
Had I but serv’d my God with half the zeal
I serv’'d my king, he would not in mine age
Have left me naked to mine enemies !”
This last expression is thus reported by Ca-
vendish, as addressed to Mr. Kingston, the cap-
tain of the guard, who attended upon him after
his arrest :
‘“‘ If I had served God as diligently as I have done
the king, he would not have given me oyer in my
gray hairs.”*
* P.542; Hol., 755.
HENRY VIII. 161
It is difficult to account for this arrest on a
charge of high treason, precisely at this time. *
In the fourth act, we have the coronation of
the queen, which is placed, as in Holinshed, im-
mediately after the mention of the court, held
by Cranmer, at Dunstable, where the divorce
between Henry and Catherine was pronounced.t
It has been conjectured that the description of
this and the other ceremonies in the play, were
drawn up by another hand. The present, cer-
tainly, is not taken from Holinshed.t+
The close of Queen Catherine’s life is repre-
sented in a scene,§ describing also that of Wol-
sey’s, of which Johnson says,
“This scene is above any part of Shakspeare’s
tragedies, and perhaps above any other scene of any
other poet, tender and pathetic; without gods or
fairies, or persons, or precipices—without the help
of romantic circumstances, without the improbable
sallies of poetical lamentation, and without the throbs
of tumultuous misery.”’|| .
* See Lingard, 163. + Hol., 778.
t See Hol., 781, where Lord William Howard is said
to have been present as Deputy Earl Marshal, and the
Duke of Suffolk as Lord High Constable. In the play,
we have no earl marshal, but Dorset as Chamberlain,
and Surry bearing the rod of silver with the dove. The
two accounts only agree as to Suffolk.
§ Act v. Se. 2. || Bosw., 441.
162 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
If I find some fault with this highly- wrought
passage, it is not for the praise which it bestows
upon this particular scene, so much as for the
blame which it unfairly insinuates against others.
Neither here nor elsewhere does Shakspeare ex-
cite us to the pathetic, by the adventitious cir-
cumstances which Johnson deprecates. Beau-
tiful as the whole scene is, I am compelled
by my critical duty to observe, that though the
death of Wolsey followed quickly upon his dis-
grace,* the unfortunate Catherine lived until the
year 1536, having been, in 1532, deprived of
the title of queen. Griffith’s description of Wol-
sey’s end is admirable :—
« At length with easy roads, he came to Leicester ;
Lodg’d in the abbey, where the reverend abbot,
With all his convent, honourably received him ;
To whom he gave these words: ‘ O father abbot /
An old man broken with the storms of state,
Is come to lay his weary bones among ye:
Give him a little earth for charity /
So went to bed, where eagerly his sickness
Pursued him still; and three nights after this,
About the hour of eight (which he himself
Foretold should be his last), full of repentance,
Continual meditations, tears, and sorrows,
* He died Noy. 29, 1530.
HENRY VIII. 163
He gave his honours to the world again,
His blessed part to heav’n, and slept in peace.”
Catherine’s character of Wolsey, and the more
candid and apologetical statement of her gentle-
man-usher, are taken from Holinshed :*
** Cath. So may he rest; his faults lie gently on
him,
Yet thus far Griffith give me leave to speak him,
And yet with charity. He was a man,
Of an unbounded stomach, ever ranking
Himself with princes ; one, that by suggestion
Ty’d all the kingdom ; simony was fair play,
His own opinion was his law: I’ th’ presence
He would say untruths, and be ever double
Both in his words and meaning; he was never,
But where he meant to ruin, pitiful ;
His promises were, as he then was, mighty ;
But his performance, as he now is, nothing.
Of his own body he was ill, and gave
The clergy ill example.
Griffith. Noble madam,
Men’s evils live in brass, their virtues
We write in water. May it please your highness,
To hear me speak his good now.
Cath. Yes, good Griffith,
I were malicious else.
* P, 756.
164 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Griffith. This cardinal,
Though from an humble stock, undoubtedly
Was fashion’d to much honour. From his cradle
He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one;
Exceeding wise, fair-spoken, and persuading ;
Lofty and sour to them that lov’d him not;
But to those men that sought him, sweet as summer.
And though he were unsatisfied in getting,
(Which was a sin) yet in bestowing, madam,
He was most princely : ever witness for him
Those towers of learning that he rais’d in you,
Ipswich and Oxford! One of which fell with him,
Unwilling to outlive the good that did it ;
The other, tho’ unfinished, yet so famous,
So excellent in art, and still so rising
That Christendom shall ever speak his virtue.
His overthrow heap’d happiness upon him,
For then, and not till then he helped himself,
And found the blessedness of being little.
And to add greater honour to his age,
Than man could give him, he died, praising God !”
Well may Catherine say,
** After my death I wish no other herald,
No other speaker of my living actions,
To keep my honour from corruption,
Than such an honest chronicler as Griffith.”
The visit of Capucius, and the queen’s letter
to her husband, are also from Holinshed.
HENRY VIII. 165
In the fifth act we have the famous Gardiner,
Bishop of Winchester, in conversation with Sir
Thomas Lovell, who announces the approaching
confinement of Anne Boleyn, for whose life he
expresses some apprehension. Gardiner is made
to express his hope that she will perish, with
“ her two hands,” Cranmer and Cromwell.
Lovell observes, that Cromwell* is master of the
Jewel Office, and of the Rolls, and king’s secre-
tary: and the archbishop very high in the king’s
favour. Gardiner says, that he is *‘a most arch
heretick,”+- and that he has obtained the king’s
permission to accuse him before the council.
Then follows the scene in which Cranmer is made
to wait at the door of the council-chamber, is
called in, and stoutly accused by Gardiner and
other lords of the council, and is about to be
committed to the Tower, when he shows the
king’s ring. Henry, who had previously assured
* Cromwell’s promotion is thus stated: In 1531
knighted, master of the jewels, and a privy councillor ;
in 1532, clerk of the hanaper, and chancellor of the
exchequer; in 1534, principal secretary of state, and
master of the Rolls. Biog. Dict., xi. 35.
+ It will not be desired that I should discuss Cran-
mer’s opinions: his first exhibition of heresy was his
protest against the pope’s supremacy, made when he be-
came archbishop.
166 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
him of his protection, comes in, rates his accu-
sers and delivers him.
I cannot find this scene in Holinshed, but it is
almost a versification of a passage in Fox’s Acts
and Monuments.* The transaction, so far from
occurring, as in the play, at the moment of the
birth of Queen Elizabeth, did not occur till the
year 1443, when Catherine Parr was queen.
This confusion of dates necessarily occasions a
confusion of persons. Strype mentions only the
Duke of Norfolk and Lord Russell. We have
neither of these names in the play, but have, on
the other hand, the lord chancellor, Suffolk,
Surry, the lord chamberlain, Gardiner, and
Cromwell, as secretary. The chancellor at the
time of the accusation was Goodrich, Bishop of
Ely ; the lord chamberlain was Lord St. John,
of Basing; Surry was the Henry of whom I
have spoken, but I am not aware that he was of
the privy-council: his observation, that he had
warned his colleagues of their danger, is, in the
history, uttered by Lord Russell. Cromwell had
been beheaded three years before.
At the close of these proceedings, Henry in-
vites Cranmer to be god-father to the young
* So says Steevens’s note in Bosw., 460; and see
Strype’s Cranmer, i. 177.
HENRY VIII. 167
princess, associating with him “ the old Duchess
of Norfolk,* and Lady Marquis Dorset.”+
The last scene displays the christening of the
young Elizabeth, afterwards queen. This cere-
mony is taken from Holinshed and Hall;t but
Shakspeare, while he borrows one short and
formal speech pronounced by Garter, takes the
opportunity of putting into the mouth of Cran-
mer a splendid prophetical eulogy upon the
royal Elizabeth.
** Let me speak, sir,
For Heav’n now bids me; and the words I utter,
Let none think flattery, for they'll find them truth.
This royal infant, (Heav’n still move about her !)
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness. She shall be
(But few now living can behold that goodness)
A pattern to all princes living with her,
And all that shall succeed. Sheba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue,
Than this pure soul shall be. All princely graces,
That mould up such a mighty piece as this
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her : truth shall nurse her,
* ITpresume, Agnes, daughter of Sir Frederick Tyl-
ney, and widow of Thomas, the second duke.
+ Wife of the second marquis, of the Greys.
t Hol., 786; Hall, 798.
168 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her.
She shall be loved and fear’d : her own shall bless her,
Her foes shake, like a field of beaten corn,
And hang their heads with sorrow. Good grows with
her :
In her days, every man shall eat in safety
Under his own vine that he plants ; and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours.
God shall be truly known; and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour,
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.”
And then come some lines which, there can
be no doubt, were interpolated after the acces-
sion of James I.*
‘«‘ Nor shall this peace sleep with her; but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phcenix
Her ashes new create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself ;
So shall she leave her blessedness to one
(When Heav’n shall call her from this cloud of dark-
ness),
Who, from the sacred ashes of her honour,
Shall, star-like, rise, as great in fame as she was,
And so stand fix’d. Peace, plenty, love, truth, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him.
Wherever the bright sun of heav’n shall shine,
* See Bosw., 495.
HENRY VIII. 169
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations. He shall flourish,
And, like a mountain-cedar, reach his branches
To all the plains about him: our children’s children
Shall see this, and bless Heav’n.”’
The interpolation is rather awkwardly ma-
naged, for the archbishop now returns to Eli-
zabeth :-—
‘« She shall be to the happiness of England,
An aged princess : many days shall see her,
And yet no day without a deed to crown it.
Would I had known no more! but she must die,
She must—the saints must have her yet a virgin ;
A most unspotted lily shall she pass
To the ground, and all the world shall mourn her.”
“« The play of Henry the Eighth (says Johnson*)
is one of those which still keep possession of the
stage by the splendour of its pageantry. The coro-
nation, about forty years ago, drew the people toge-
ther in multitudes, for great part of the winter ; yet
pomp is not the only ornament of this play. The
meek sorrows and virtuous distress of Catherine, have
furnished some scenes, which may be justly num-
bered among the greatest efforts of tragedy. But the
genius of Shakspeare comes in and goes out with
Catherine; every other part may be easily conceived,
and easily written.”
* Bosw., 498.
VOL. II. I
170 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
The critic does much less than justice to this
play, which has been admired by a more mo-
dern audience, for beauties far other than those
of the coronation. Much, no doubt, was owing
to the splendid representation of Catherine by
Siddons,—splendid being here not superlative,
but characteristic;—but there is scarcely one
scene in the play which may not be admired in
the closet. Of the characters, that of Catherine
is doubtless the most complete and true. It is
taken from history, with little colouring or sup-
pression, and it has an admirable combination of
dignity, simplicity, firmness, and feminine affec-
tion.*
It may be thought, that with the character of
Henry more pains are taken, in order to repre-
sent him in a favourable light; but no impor-
tant incident or speech is given without war-
ranty from the Chronicles. If, therefore, the
dramatist has exercised any art, it is only in
selecting from the life of his queen’s father those
passages which exhibit him the least unfavour-
ably. But though the history of his divorcing
his first wife is taken from the recorded speeches
* Although I do not go the whole way with Mrs,
Jameson in my estimate of this character, I earnestly
recommend her observations to perusal (Charact. ii. 260),
as well as Catherine’s letters to which she refers.
HENRY VIII. 171
of Henry himself, Shakspeare has freely stated
the insinuations of unworthy motives which
prevailed among the people. The imperiousness
of the king’s character, too, is fairly represented
on several occasions.
The character of Wolsey, or rather all that
illustrates the character of Wolsey, is taken from
the Chronicle, just as Shakspeare found it; and
no one of the historical dramas supports, more
than this, the opinion to which I have felt
inclined in going through the series, that Shak-
speare used very little artifice, and, in truth,
had very little design, in the construction of the
greater number of historical characters. He
dramatised incidents and speeches, and left cha-
racters to be inferred.
Malone has alluded* to somebody, who “ tam-
pered with parts of the play so much, as to have
rendered the versification of it of a different
colour from all the other plays of Shakspeare ;”
and the peculiar versification of this play, is the
subject of an ingenious criticism by Mr. Rode-
rick.+ This gentleman observes, that more lines
in this play than in any other have a redundant
or eleventh syllable; and that the pauses are
* Bosw., 496.
+ Canons of Criticism, 7th edit., p. 263.
ype
172 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
thrown nearer to the end of the verse.* I en-
tirely agree with this critic, that a speech in
Henry VIII. sounds differently to the ear from
most others of Shakspeare, and I rather think
that he has correctly mentioned the mechanical
cause. How Shakspeare came thus to vary his
measure I cannot guess, but that it is his mea-
sure, I see not the slightest reason for doubting.
I know that even in prose the construction of
sentences, and (if I may say so) the air, is much
affected by the tone of the writer’s mind at the
moment, and by the nature of his subject. It
did occur to me, as a cause of the variety, that
the greater number of the speeches to which
Roderick’s remarks are applicable, are. plain-
tive ; but that is not the character of Cranmer’s
speech at the christening, which is open to the
same remark. I must leave the difficulty as I
find it.
Of these plays in general, Johnson says,+
‘¢ The historical dramas are now concluded, of
* There is a third observation, “ that the emphasis
arises from the sense of the verse very often clashing
with the cadence that would naturally result from the
metre.’ This remark gives too much importance to
quantity, which scarcely prevails in English; nor is it,
I think, borne out.
+ Bosw., 502.
HENRY VIII. N73
which the two parts of Henry IV. and Henry V.
are among the happiest of our author’s composi-
tions, and King John, Richard III. and Henry
VIII., deservedly stand in the second class.”
I would put Henry VIII., and I think King
John also, in the same class with Henry V.
Richard II. deserves also to be promoted.
MACBETH.
In yielding toa suggestion that I should give
historical illustrations of some of Shakspeare’s
historical plays which are not taken from the His-
tory of England, and accordingly selecting, as the
first of these, theonly play which relates a passage
in Scottish history, I am bound to confess that
there are not all the inducements to this exami-
nation which led me to the English plays. Mac-
beth is read, chiefly, if not solely, as a romantic
tragedy ; few of those who read it, and fewer of
those who witness its representation on the Lon-
don stage, think about the history of Scotland.
Nevertheless, this play was suggested to Shak-
speare by the very same historian who supplied
him with subjects for the ten plays from English
history ; some, at least, of the characters are
historical persons, and the story is ‘‘ founded in
fact.” I hope, therefore, that I stand excused
MACBETH. 175
for dealing with this play as I have dealt with the
others.
To ascertain the truth of the story is difficult,
if not impossible, for it carries us back to a re-
moter period than the earliest of the English
plays—a period antecedent to our Norman Con-
quest ;—and imperfect as are the annals of Eng-
land at that period, those of Scotland are more so.
Shakspeare’s authority was Holinshed. Ho-
linshed copied for the most part from wri-
ters who lived five hundred years after Mac-
beth, and whose works are of no authority
whatever. Contemporary chronicles there are
none. But I shall recur to those which are
nearest in date, and most prized by Scottish
antiquaries.
The darkness in which he found the early
history of his country has apparently deterred
Mr. Tytler, the most recent historian of Scot-
land, from treating of any of the kings prior
to Alexander III., who reigned in 1429, four
centuries after Macbeth. As my guide to the
Scottish chroniclers, I therefore take Pinkerton,*
who has bestowed two volumes upon the early
history of Scotland.
* An Enquiry into the History of Scotland, preceding
Malcolm III., or the year 1056; by John Pinkerton,
1814,
176 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Duncan, king of Scotland, who is introduced
to us in the first act,* succeeded, in 1031, his
grandfather Malcolm II. But as it was through
a daughter (who married Crinan, abbot of Dun-
keld),+ that he was descended from his predeces-
sor, his right to the throne is, by the learned,
thought very doubtful.
For the first event of which we hear—the re-
bellion of Macdowald—Shakspeare has recourse
to Holinshed,} according to whom it occurred in
1040, and on this occasion, Macbeth and Banquo
were the successful generals employed on the
part of the king; Banquo being himself Thane
of Lochaber, in which district the rebellion
broke out. The Thane of Cawdor having joined
Macdowald, was condemned to death, and his
Thanedom was given to Macbeth. Meanwhile
Sweyn, king of Norway, invaded Scotland on the
eastern side;
«« The Norwegian lord, surveying vantage,
With furbish’d arms, and new supplies of men,
Began a fresh assault ;”
but this invader also was defeated by the asso-
ciated commanders.
* Sc. 2.
+ It is doubted whether in these early days. priests
married, or whether abbacies were given to laymen.
t V. 265.
MACBETH. 177
Thus far the Chronicle and the play run toge-
ther, except that, according to Holinshed, the
Scottish troops were in the first instance defeated
at Culross; and it was through a stratagem of
a strange sort that the invaders were ultimately
overcome.
** The Scots took the juice of mickle-wort berries,
and mixed the same in their ale and bread, sending
it thus spiced and confectioned in great abundance
unto their enemies. They, rejoicing that they had
got meat and drink sufficient to satisfy their bellies, fell
to eating and drinking after such greedy wise, that it
seemed they strove who might devour and swallow
up most, till the operation of the berries spread in
such sort through all the parts of their bodies that
they were in the end brought into a fast dead sleep,
that in manner it was impossible to awake them.”
And in this heavy sleep they were put to death
by Macbeth.
But not a word of this preliminary matter is
found in the Scottish chronicles. ‘Those which,
for want of earlier and better, are deemed the
first and most authentic, are the Polichronicon
of Fordun,* and the metrical chronicle of Andrew
Wyntown.¢ Holinshed’s authority was Hector
* Published by Hearne, in five volumes 8vo. It is also
in Gale, ii, 565.
+ By Macpherson, two volumes 8vo. 1795.
13
178 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Boyse (or Boethius, as he is called), whose his-
tory is universally deemed fabulous.* It is net
necessary to say much of Fordun, who wrote in
the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and whose
narrative is very meagre; it was probably
founded partly on tradition and partly on some
old chronicles now unknown. Fordun probably
rejected all that appeared fanciful.
He accordingly takes no notice of the witches»
whom Shakspeare, following Holinshed, now
introduces to us, accosting Macbeth and Banquo
on their return towards Fores, after the defeat
of the Norwegians.
“1st Witch. All hail Macbeth! hail to thee,
Thane of Glamis!
2d Witch. All hail Macbeth! hail to thee,
Thane of Cawdor!
3d Witch. All hail Macbeth! that shalt be king
hereafter !
Ban. Good sir, why do you start, and seem to fear,
Things that do sound so fair ?—I’ th name of truth,
Are ye fantastical, or that indeed
Which outwardly ye show ? My noble partner,
You greet with present grace, and great prediction
* See Macpherson, in Wyntown, i. p. 2. I take no no-
tice of Buchanan, who preceded Shakspeare, by a few
years only, because he is no authority, and was not used
by our poet, directly or indirectly.—See Robertson, i. 4.
MACBETH. 179
Of noble bearing, and of royal hope,
That he seems rapt withal; to me you speak not :
If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow, and which will not,
Speak then to me, who neither beg, nor fear,
Your favours nor your hate.
lst Witch. Hail! 2d Witch. Hail! 3d Witch. Hail!
lst Witch. Lesser than Macbeth and greater !
2d Witch. Not so happy, yet much happier !
3d Witch. Thou shalt get kings, though thou be
none :
So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!
lst Witch. Banquo and Macbeth, all hail!
Macb. Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more ;
By Simel’s death, I know I am Thane of Glamis ;
But how of Cawdor? The Thane of Cawdor lives,
A prosperous gentleman: and, to be king,
Stands not within the prospect of belief,
No more than to be Cawdor. Say from whence
You owe this strange intelligence, or why
Upon this blasted heath you stop our way
With such prophetic greeting ?”
All this, including Banquo’s remonstrance, is
from Holinshed* and Boethius. Holinshed, after
mentioning the threefold address of the witches,
gives this speech to Banquo :—
«* What manner of women are you, that seem so
little favourable to me, whereas to my fellow here,
* Hol., 268.
180 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
besides high offices, ye assign also the kingdom, ap-
pointing forth nothing for me at’all.”
And the witch answers—
“Yes, we promise greater benefits unto thee than
unto him, for he shall reign indeed, but with an un-
lucky end: neither shall he leave any issue behind
him to succeed in his place, where certainly thou in
deed shall not reign atall, but of thee there shall be
born which shall govern the Scottish kingdom by
long order of continual descent.”’
Then we have the mutual banterings of the
two chiefs, ,
“* Banquo would call Macbeth, in jest, king of
Scotland, and Macbeth again would call him in sport
likewise, the father of many kings.”
Elaborate remarks have been made* upon
the belief of Shakspeare’s age in witchcraft,
whereby his use of this preternatural ma-
chinery is justified. It is enough that Shak-
speare found the witches in his text-book, and
fortunate for us that he used them to diversify
his tragedy, if indeed that can be styled a
variety which, in truth, constitutes the epic of
the play.
Inferences have also been drawn as to Shak-
speare’s Intentions with respect to Macbeth’s
* See Bosw., xi. 3.
MACBETH. 181
character,* from the circumstance of Banquo
being the first to speak to the weird sisters. My
quotation from Holinshed shews that the poet
has copied the chronicler.
But it is remarkable that the Chronicle of
Andrew Wyntown+ has nothing beyond nature
in this story, but places in a dream the phanta-
sies by which Macbeth was deluded. I will
attempt a translation of the chapter (ch. xviii.),
which is headed,
When Macbeth-Finlay arose, and reigned in
Scotland.
In this time, as you heard me tell of treason that
occurred in England, in Scotland nearly the like was
practised by Macbeth, when he murdered his own
uncle, through the hope which he had in a dream
that he had when young and dwelling in the house
of the king, who treated him fairly and well, in every
little matter that belonged to him. For he was his
sister’s son, and he caused every thing to be done for
him that he desired.
One night he thought, in his dreaming, that he
was sitting beside the king on a hunting party, he
accordingly had two greyhounds in his leash. He
* Whateley’s Remarks, p. 47, Kemble, 41. See
Coleridge’s Lit. Rem., ii. 239.
+ He was born, according to Macpherson, in the
reign of David IIT. which began in 1329,
182 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
thought the while he was so sitting, he saw three
women going by, and these three women, he thought,
were most like to three weird sisters. The first he
heard say, as she went by, ‘‘ Lo, there is the Thane
of Cromarty.” The other woman said, “I see
the Thane of Moray.’”’ The third said, << I see the
king.” All this he heard in his dream.
Macbeth had recently become Thane of Gla-
mis, by the death of his father Sinel (or Finel);
and he is now greeted equally in Holinshed and
in Shakspeare as the Thane of Cawdor. Find-
ing the witches right in two particulars, Mac-
beth begins to contemplate the accomplishment
of the more splendid prediction, and sees no
way to it but the commission of a murder. So
in Wyntown ;—
‘Soon after this, in his youth, he was made
thane of these thanedoms ; moreover, he now thought
to be king, after Duncan’s days should come to an
end. Thus the fantasies of his dream excited him to
slay his uncle, as in fact he did forthwith.”
And in the play,
‘© Mach. Two truths are told,
As happy preludes to the swelling act
Of the imperial theme.
This supernatural soliciting
Cannot be ill; cannot be good : if ill,
Why hath it given me earnest of success,
MACBETH. 183
Commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor :
If good, why do I yield to that suggestion
Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair,
And make my sealed heart knock at my ribs
Against the use of nature? Present fears
Are less than horrible imaginings :
My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,
Shakes so my single state of man, that function
Is smother’d in surmise ; and nothing is,
But what is not.”
The idea of the murder, we see, came into
Macbeth’s head before he was urged to it by his
wife.*
His apprehensions lest he should not obtain
the third and most splendid prize is strongly
excited, when the king, after conferring the
thanedom of Cawdor upon Macbeth, makes his
own son, Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland, which
as Holinshed tells us—
** was thereby to appoint him successor in his king-
dom immediately after his decease. Macbeth sorely
troubled herewith, for that he saw by this means his
hope sore hindered, (where by the old laws of the
realm the ordinance was, that if he that should suc-
ceed were not of able age to take the charge upon
himself, he that was next of blood unto him should
be admitted,) he began to take counsel how he might
* See Mrs. Jameson, ii. 305.
184 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
usurp the kingdom by force, having a just quarrel so
to do (as he took the matter), for that Duncan did
what in him lay to defraud him of all manner of
title and claim which he might, in time to come,
pretend unto the crown.”*
«* Macb. The Prince of Cumberland! That is a
step
On which I must fall down, or else o’erleap,
For in my way it lies.”
We have nowy the heroine and great support
of the piece, Lady Macheth. In this part of his
story, Shakspeare follows Holinshed and Be-
thius, who improve upon the ancient Chronicle.
Andrew Wyntown assigns to the wifeof Macbeth
no part in the murder of Duncan, nor indeed
assigns any wife to him at the time of that
wicked action. The wife of Macbeth is, in the
Chronicle, the widow of Duncan, and does not
appear until after the murder of her first hus-
band. .
*«« And he took Dame Gruach, his uncle’s wife,
and lived with her, deeming her both wife and
queen, as she had been before to his uncle while he
was reigning, for he paid little attention to the de-
grees of affinity.”
* Hol., 269. See Malone’s note, showing that Holin-
shed copied from Beece and Buchanan.—Bosw., 57.
4 Act. Sexo:
MACBETH. 185
Holinshed’s version is assuredly much the best
for a dramatic purpose.
‘“* The words of the three weird sisters greatly en-
couraged him hereunto, but specially his wife, lay
ore upon him to attempt the thing, as she that was
very ambitious, having an unquenchable desire to
bear the name of a queen.”*
This enables Shakspeare to paint his splendid
picture of female ambition, and its effects, in in-
spiring masculine courage into the soul of a
woman. Her invocations are almost horrible :
*« Come, come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here ;
And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood,
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall. You murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief! Come thick night,
And pall thee in the deepest smoke of hell !
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes ;
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry, Hold, hold!”
* Hol., 269,
186 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
And her injunction to her husband, to con-
ceal his purpose under a mask of kindness, is
beautifully expressed ;—
‘* Look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under it.”
Yet, considering that this was the first time
of her mentioning the murderous project to her
husband, and that she could not be aware of the
thoughts that had occupied his mind, this con-
versation may appear rather brief. The defi-
ciency is soon supplied, and taken all together,
the soliloquies of the two guilty parties and
their inter-communings are perfect.
““Macb. If it were done, when it is done, then
*twere well
It were done quickly. If the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease, success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time
We'd jump the life to come.—But in these cases,
We still have judgment here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poison’d chalice
To our own lips. He’s here in double trust :
First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,
Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,
MACBETH. 187
Who should against his murderer shut the door,
Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan
Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been
So clear in his great office, that his virtues
Will plead, like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his taking off :
And pity, like a naked new-born babe,
Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubim, hors’d
Upon the sightless coursers of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself,
And falls on the other.”
He communicates the result of this self-debate
to his wife.
‘* Macb. We will proceed no further in this busi-
ness :
He hath honour’d me of late, and I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people,
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss,
Not cast aside so soon.
Lady M. Was the hope drunk
Wherein you dress’d yourself ? Hath it slept since ?
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely? From this time
Such I account thy love. Art thou afraid
To be the same in thine own act and valour,
188 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
As thou art in desire? Would’st thou have that,
Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem ?
Letting I dare not, wait upon I would,
Like the poor cat i’ the adage ?
Macb. Pr’ythee, peace:
I dare do all that may become a man,
Who dares do more, is none.
Lady M. What beast was it then,
That made you break this enterprise to me ?
When you durst do it, then you were a man:
And to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man. Nor time, nor place,
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both:
They’ve made themselves, and that their fitness now
Doth unmake you. I have given suck, and know
How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me :
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from its boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn, as you
Have done to this.”
This is horribly powerful, but it is not quite
borne out by what has passed. Although it is
true, as Mrs. Jameson observes, * that an imagin-
ing of the murder did come across the mind of
Macbeth before his wife communicated her pro-
ject, yet it is not correctly said either that he
* 11. 305.
MACBETH, 189
broke the enterprize to her, and so far from
having sworn to perform it, he would not in
the only interview which we have witnessed,
finally make up his mind to the deed. Mrs.
Jameson’s womanly feelings prompt her to sug-
gest, that although Lady Macbeth was the
more determined sinner of the two, her ambition
was for her husband more than for herself. This
suggestion might be justified by an hundred
examples; but I find nothing in Shakspeare’s
play, either to establish or negative it in the
present instance. His authority, we have seen,
ascribes to her an insatiable ambition for her-
self, and the Chronicler from whom Holinshed
borrowed, tells us that she was herein like
others of her sex.
“ His wife, impatient of long tarry (as all women
are, specially where they are desirous of any pur-
pose), gave him great hortation to pursue the third
weird, that she might be a queen, calling him oft-
times feeble coward. and not desirous of honours,
since he durst not seize the thing with manhood and
courage which is offered to him by benevolence of
fortune. Howbeit, sundry others have seized such
things before with most terrible jeopardies, when
they had not such likelihood to succeed in the end
of their labours as he had.”’*
* Boyse, p. 173, Bellenden’s edit. also Bosw. 38.
190 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
I have distinguished some passages of this
quotation, and of Lady Macbeth’s speech, from
which it might be inferred that Shakspeare
consulted Boethius as well as Holinshed.
I must proceed with this striking scene.
“* Macb. If we should fail ?
Lady M. We fail!
But screw your courage to the sticking-place,
And we'll not fail. When Duncan is asleep,
(Whereto the rather shall his hard day’s journey
Soundly invite him,) his two chamberlains
Will I with wine and wassail so convince,
That memory, the warder of the brain,
Shall be a fume; and the receipt of reason
A limbeck only. When in swinish sleep
Their drenched natures lie, as in a death,
What cannot you and I perform upon
The unguarded Duncan ? what not put upon
His spongy officers ; who shall bear the guilt
Of our great quell?
Macb. Bring forth men-children only !
For thy undaunted mettle should compose
Nothing but males. Will it not be receiv’d,
When we have mark’d with blood those sleepy two
Of his own chamber, and us’d their very daggers,
That they have don’t?
Lady M. Who dares receive it other?”
As we shall make our griefs and clamour roar
Upon his death?
MACBETH, 191
Macb. I am settled, and bend up,
Each corporal agent to this terrible feat.
Awake, and mock the time with fairest show ;
False face must hide what the false heart doth know.”
It has been observed by former commenta-
tors,* that this attempt to impute the murder
to the king’s two chamberlains, is taken from
Holinshed’s account, not of this King Duncan,
but of a King Duffe, who was murdered by order
of Donwald, in whose castle he lay, at the instiga-
tion of his wife. The circumstances are almost
exactly those which Shakspeare has adopted,
even to the killing of the chamberlains.
** Macb. O! yet I do repent me of my fury,
That I did kill them.
Macd. Wherefore did you so?
Macb. Who can be wise, amaz’d, temperate, and
furious,
Loyal and neutral, in a moment? No man.
The expedition of my violent love
Outran the pauser, Reason. Here lay Duncan,
His silver skin lac’d with his golden blood ;
And his gash’d stabs look’d like a breach in nature,
For ruin’s wasteful entrance: there, the murderers,
Steep’d in the colours of their trade, their daggers
Unmannerly breech’d with gore: who could refrain,
* Bosw. 85, 297. + Hol., v. 234.
192 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
That had a heart to love, and in that heart
Courage, to make his love known ?”
In the play, the murder is planned, and the
secret kept, between husband and wife alone,
and the strength of the drama would have been
greatly injured by the admission of other con-
spirators. But in order to concentrate his force
upon Macbeth and his wife, Shakspeare has
wisely departed from Holinshed, who says,
“ At length, therefore, and communicating his
purposed intent with his trusty friends, among
whom Banquo was the chiefest, upon confidence of
their promised aid, he slew the king at Inverness,
or, aS some say, at Botgosuane, in the sixth year
of his reign.” +
The more ancient Chronicles do not even
concur in ascribing to Macbeth the murder of
Duncan, though they all say that he succeeded
him. Of Banquo, not even the existence is
mentioned, nor any other accomplice by name,
male or female.*
Shakspeare would lead us to believe that the
* Pinkerton, ii. 192; Fordun in Gale, iii. 687 ; Chron.
Mailros in Gale, i. 156. This Chronicle says only that
Macbeth usurped Duncan’s throne after his death. The
“‘Elegiac Chronicle” interpolated into it, states that he
slew him. Gale, i. 597. + Hol., 269.
MACBETH, 193
two sons of Duncan suspected Macbeth or some
of the nobles.
** Malcolm. Let’s not consort with them :
To show an unfelt sorrow, is an office
Which the false man does easy: [Pll to England.
Donaldbane. ‘To Ireland, I; our separated fortune
Shall keep us both the safer : where we are
There’s daggers in men’s smiles: the near tn blood,
The nearer bloody.”
This voluntary exile of the princes is from
Holinshed; but the suspicion thrown upon
them is Shakspeare’s own. Wyntown says,
** When first Macbeth began to rise, his uncle’s
two legitimate sons fled out of the kingdom for fear.
Malcolm, the third, who was not lawfully born, also
went out with his brothers to Prince Edward, who
then reigned in England; he received them thank-
fully, and treated them right courteously.”
This illegitimation of Malcolm I do not find
elsewhere.
It has been surmised that Haat is de-
scribed as innocent of the murder, because he
was the reputed ancestor of King James I., but
there is no necessity for seeking any other than
dramatic motives.
VOL, II. K
194 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
In the third act we have Macbeth as king,
as, according to all Chronicles, he was. But
what relates to Banquo, and his murder, is from
Holinshed and Boyse, and his imaginative pre-
cursors; from these, however, Shakspeare has
deviated slightly, in placing the murder of
Banquo before the supper; and thus has in-
troduced the famous banquet, in which the
ghost of Banquo appears, and occasions one of
the most interesting scenes in the play. It is
to be observed that this new crime was planned
by Macbeth himself.
**« Macb. O, full of scorpions is my life, dear wife !
Thou know’st that Banquo, and his Fleance, lives.
Lady M. But in them Nature’s copy’s not eternal.
Macb. 'There’s comfort yet, they are assailable ;
Then, be thou jocund. Ere the bat hath flown
His cloister’d flight; ere, to black Hecate’s summons,
The shard-borne beetle with his drowsy hums,
Hath rung night’s yawning peal, there shall be done
A deed of dreadful note.”
The escape of Fleance is in the Chronicle,
where the pedigree of the Stuarts, Kings of
Scotland, is traced from Walter, the son of
Fleance, who becomes Steward of Scotland. I
remember hearing that the late Lord Erskine,
MACBETH. 195
sitting one night to see the splendid acting of
Kemble and Mrs. Siddons, observed upon the
murder scene, that if Fleance had not escaped, he
should not be there; alluding to the descent of
the Erskines from Robert II.* But the learned
in Scottish antiquities say, that this descent of
the royal house of Stuart from Banquo is fabu-
lous. All that is known is, that the Stuarts were
a considerable family in the time of David I.,
whose reign began in 1124.
The next incident of which we hear has higher
authority.
“ Macb. How say’st thou, that Macduff denies his
person
At our great bidding ?
Lady M. Did you send to him, sir?
Macb. I hear it by the way; but I will send :
There’s not a one of them but in his house ;
I keep a servant feed.”
Again,t
« Lenox. From broad words, and ’cause he failed
His presence at the tyrant’s feast, I hear, ©
Macduff lives in disgrace.”
* e°
* Betham, Tab. 622. + 8c. 6.
196 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
«« Lenox. Sent he to Macduff?
Lud. He did, and with an absolute Sir, not I,
The cloudy messenger turns me his back,
And hems, as who should say, You'll rue the time
That clogs me with this answer.”
The story in Holinshed * is, that Macbeth
built a castle at the top of Dunsinane hill, ‘* to
the end that he might the more cruelly oppress
his subjects with all tyrant-like wrongs.” The
work was very expensive, because all the mate-
rials were to be carried up the hill, and Macbeth
required all his thanes to assist in their turns,
by sending their teams, I suppose. Macduff
refused, and fled into England, when Macbeth
having obtained admittance into his castle, caused
his wife and children to be slain.
The story in Wyntown has some interesting
particulars.
‘* Macbeth now, as King of Scotland, made a great
stir, and set about building a fortified house on the
heights of Dunsinane. He had many oxen collected
to draw timber and stone from Fife and Angus.
One day, he saw a yoke of oxen fail in their draught ;
he asked, who owned that yoke, and they answered,
Macduff, the Thane of Fife, owned these oxen. Then
Macbeth answered spitefully, and said angrily to the
* P. 275.
MACBETH, 197
thane, that he would put his own neck into the
yoke, all writhing in his skin, and make him draw
the draught ; not doubting his fear of the king. When
the thane heard Macbeth say that he would put his
neck into the yoke, he said nothing of his thoughts,
but privately got out of the crowd, and the steward
gave him a loaf for his supper. And as soon as he
found time and an opportunity, ran out of the court,
and carried that loaf with him to the waters of Erne.
That bread he gave to the boatmen to: carry him
over and land him on the south side without delay.
That passage was long afterwards called Portne-
baryan, that is, the Haven of bread. He was carried
over the water without danger or hindrance.
** At Dunsinane, that night, so soon as the supper
was spread, and his marshal called Macbeth to the
hall, the Thane of Fife was missed, and no man knew
where he was. But a knight who was sitting near
Macbeth at supper, said that he would undertake
soon to ascertain where the Thane of Fife then was,
for he was a clever man at contrivance, and very
cunning in his doings. He said to Macbeth, that he
would spare no cost to find out where Macduff was.
This highly moved Macbeth to proceed against
Macduff.
“* Nevertheless, Macduff, who was landed on the
south of the waters of Erne, went on to Kennachy
in Fife, where his wife dwelt in a house made for
defence, and bade her to maintain that house with
198 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
all diligence, and if the king should come thither and
command any felony to be committed, she was to
hold Macbeth in fair entreaty, while she should see
a boat sailing from the north to the south, and
when she saw that boat to tell Macbeth that the
Thane of Fife was there, and was travelling to Dunsi-
nane to meet Macbeth; for the Thane of Fife thought,
that when he came again to Kennachy he should
bring with him a lawful king.
“* Macbeth soon came to Kennachy, and would
have done great injury, but his lady with fair en-
treaty prevented his purpose from being executed :
and soon, when she saw the sail up, she said to
Macbeth with little fear, Macbeth, look up and see
—the Thane of Fife is under that sail. Know well,
and do not doubt, but that if ever you shall see him
again, he will be put into great pain, since you
would have set his neck in the yoke. Now, will I
speak to you no more, go on your way, either well
or ill, as may happen.”
That passage has been since commonly called
‘‘ the Earl’s Ferry.” Andrew tells us that there
ought by law to be always a boat on either side,
and that the fare should be no more than four-
pence.
Macbeth is here, and from his accession to
the throne, painted by the poet as a tyrant as
well as usurper. MHolinshed represents him as
commencing his administration well, and mak-
MACBETH. 199
ing some very good laws,* but becoming after-
wards a tyrant, through fear of his thanes. The
more ancient Chronicle nowhere says that he
was a tyrant, or a bad king, unless it be for his
treatment of Macduff.
** When his uncle was dead (says Wyntown) he
succeeded in his place, and reigned as king in Scot-
land for seventeen years. All this time there was
great abundance both by land and sea: he was right
lawful in matters of justice, and very awful to his
lieges. When Leo the Tenth+ was Pope of Rome,
he went to that court as a pilgrim, and distributed
alms of silver to all poor folk that were collected,
and he acted, all his time, profitably for the holy
church.”
Macbeth’s second resort to the weird sisters,+
and their equivocating predictions, are in Holin-
shed, § and so is the dialogue between Malcolm
and Macduff,|| which is taken from Boethius.
This curious incident is also found in Wyntown.
It is unnecessary to say that the sleep-walking
- scene is a beautiful fiction. ‘The remaining events
are told in the play in pretty close accordance
with Holinshed. Malcolm returned to Scot-
* See Hol.,270. But these laws are not deemed au-
thentic.—Lord Hailes, i. 3.
+ It should be Leo IX. TEAC Tyaoc sts
§ P. 274. || Act iv. Se. 3.
900 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
land, accompanied by an English army, under the
command of Siward, Earl of Northumberland,
and was joined by several of the Scottish chiefs :
‘* Menteth. The English power is near, led on by
Malcolm,
His uncle Siward, and the good Macduff.” *
The wife of Duncan is supposed to have been
the sister of Siward;t who is, therefore, pro-
perly styled uncle to Duncan’s son.
Holinshed tells us that the Scottish thanes
were divided into the parties of Macbeth and
Malcolm ; Shakspeare does not assign a single
‘nobleman of Scotland”t to the party of the
usurper. Seyton, described as “an officer atten-
dant upon Macbeth,” is his only partizan. The
names of the thanes who sided with Malcolm
are from Holinshed and Boethius. But the gene-
alogist of the Scottish peerage does not claim for
the families named so ancient an existence among
the nobles of the land.§
It is evidently Shakspeare’s intention to repre-
sent Macbeth as suffering from remorse, and
* Act v. Se.2. + Hol., 269.
$ “ Dram. Pers.—Macduff, Lenox, Rosse, Menteth,
Angus, Caithness—noblemen of Scotland.”
§ Douglas, i. 62, 292; ii. 80, 223, 417. Macduff, Earl
of Fife, appears to be only one of Shakspeare’s earls who
is acknowledged by the Scottish genealogist, i. 573.
MACBETH, 201
occasionally despairing, from consciousness of the
hate which he had inspired.
‘* Caithness. Some say he’s mad; others, that lesser
hate him,
Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain,
He cannot buckle his distemper’d cause
Within the belt of rule.
Angus. Nor does he feel
His secret murders sticking on his hands ;
Now minutely results upbraid his faith-breach,
Those he commands move only in command,
Nothing in love ; now does he feel his title
Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe
Upon a dwarfish thief.
“* Menteth. : Who then shall blame
His pester’d senses to recoil and start,
When all that is within him doth condemn
Itself for being there ?”
Such are the observations of his enemies ; but
his own language confirms them. After receiv-
ing with pettish impatience the news of the ap-
proach of the English force ;
“Tm sick at heart
When I behold—Seyton, I say! This push
Will cheer me ever, or disseat me now.
I have liv’d long enough; my way of life
Is fall’n into the sear, the yellow leaf :
And that which should accompany old age,
K 3
902 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have ; but in their stead,
Curses, not loud, but deep, mouth-honour, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny,
But dare not.”
And when told by the physician of his wife’s
* thick-coming fancies ;”— _
“‘ Can’st thou not minister toa mind diseas’d ;
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow ;
Raze out the written troubles of the brain,
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuff’d bosom oi that perilous stuff,
Which weighs upon the heart ?”’*
Moreover, presently,’ having heard of Lady
Macbeth’s death, he moralizes—
«© She should have died hereafter ;
There would have been a time for such a word—
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time ;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow ; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
* Se, 3.
MACBETH. 203
He becomes more and more desperate, and is
for a moment quite unnerved, when he finds
that the witches have equivocated with him.
The stratagem by which Birnam wood is
made to appear to come to Dunsinane is taken
from Holinshed. In Wyntown, the boughs are
assumed for the very purpose of frightening
Macbeth, whose confidence in the prophecy
was known to his enemies.*
Shakspeare and Holinshed also differ from
Wyntown as to the death of Macbeth. They
make Macduff the victor in a personal com-
bat; and Holinshed, as well as Wyntown,
represents Macbeth as taking to flight, so soon
as he perceived the moving wood ; but the old
Chronicler says that Macduff was unsuccessful
in his pursuit, and was forestalled by a certain
knight; and to him, and not to Macduff, is
assigned the strange birth which responded to
the assurance of the weird sisters.
It is from Holinshed+ that our poet took the
remark of old Siward upon his son’s death—
«« Siward. Had he his hurts before ?
Rosse. Aye; on the front.
Siward. Why, then, God’s soldier be he!
* Wyntown, line 36].
t Hol., i. 749.
204 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Had I as many sons as I have hairs,
I would not wish them to a fairer death,
And so his knell is knoll’d.”’
Shakspeare has done well in taking this inci-
dent; the death of young Siward is related by
the English Chronicles.
Following Holinshed, Shakspeare gives the
crown to Malcolm immediately after the death
of Macbeth; and, certainly, several English
historians affirm that Siward placed the young
prince on the throne, by order of our Edward,
the Confessor. But Pinkerton doubts whether
the English king interfered at all; and as-
cribes the aid given by Siward to his family
connection with Malcolm. He says, moreover,
that Malcolm did not immediately succeed Mac-
beth, but that Lulach, who was in some way
nearly related to the usurper, reigned for four
months; and that there was afterwards an inter-
reenum of a year anda half before Malcolm
III. ascended the throne: in this interval Siward
died.*
This Scottish author is anxious to show
that the Scots got rid of Macbeth by the assist-
ance of Siward’s forces, but without any inter-
ference on the part of the English government.
* Flor., Wig., p. 629.
MACBETH, 205
I cannot decide this point. Florence of Wor-
cester, and the Chronicle of Mailros, both state
that Siward’s proceedings were ‘by the com-
mand of the king.” The Saxon Chronicle leaves
room for Pinkerton’s conjecture :—
“1054. This year went Earl Siward with a large
army against Scotland, consisting both of ships and
land forces ; and, engaging with the Scots, he put to
flight the king, Macbeth; slew all the best of the
land, and led thence much spoil, such as no man
before obtained. Many fell also on his side, both
Danish and English, even his own son Osborn, and
his sister’s son Siward, and many of his house-
earls, and also of the king’s, there were slain that day,
which was called the day of the Seven Sleepers.”’*
I cannot find good authority for the accession
and short reign of Lulach ;+ Andrew Wypn-
town says nothing about him. ‘The Chronicle
of Mailros, which mentions} Malcolm’s being
placed on the throne by Siward in 1054, men-
tions him again in 1056 as succeeding to the
throne by hereditary right, and reigning thirty-
seven years. As the same authority says that
he was slain in 1093, it would appear that the
* Ingram’s Saxon Chron., p. 242,
+ According to Lord Hailes, this was a nickname ; it
signifies a fool.
{ Gale, i. 156.
206 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
reign commenced at this second period, and that
Siward did not succeed in establishing him fairly
upon the throne after the death of Macbeth.
Fordun, too, says that the reward of his
friends, by promotion to a new title—
«« My thanes and kinsmen
Henceforth be Earls, the first that ever Scotland
In such an honour nam’d,”
is from Holinshed ; but the fact is denied.*
“« This play,” says Johnson,f ‘‘is deservedly cele-
brated for the propriety of its fictions, and solem-
nity, grandeur, and variety of its action, but it has
no nice discrimination of character, the events are
too great to admit the influence of particular dis-
positions, and the cause of the action necessarily
determines the conduct of the agents. The danger
of ambition is well described, and I know not whe-
ther it may not be said in defence of some parts
which now seem improbable, that in Shakspeare’s
time it was necessary to warn credulity against
vain and illusive predictions. The passions are
directed to their true end. Lady Macbeth is merely
detested, and though the courage of Macbeth pre-
serves some esteem, yet every reader rejoices at his
fall.”’
Macbeth is certainly one of the most popular
* See note on Buchanan, 1752, p. 166,
+ Bosw., 276.
MACBETH. 207
of Shakspeare’s plays, and perhaps it is so be-
cause the interest and strength of the play is
concentrated. An audience thinks little of any
personage, except Macbeth and his wife ; and in
them there is assuredly a sufficient discrimina-
tion of character. ‘To Johnson’s observation on
Lady Macbeth, and the contrary opinion of Mrs.
Jameson, I have referred already.* I agree with
this lady, whose enthusiasm for Shakspeare and
for her own sex, are nearly equal, that Shak-
speare, who formed the character of Lady Mac-
beth upon a slight hint in the Chronicle, did not
mean to paint a woman entirely unsexed; even
in passages the most revoltingly criminal and
cruel, there are indications of womanly feeling ;
but that she excites our sympathy, I still deny :
nor would Shakspeare’s work be so admirable,
if such abominable iniquity were made to appear
tolerable. Mrs. Jameson commends Hazlitt’s
notice of Lady Macbeth, but thinks it still too
harsh. Surely, his touch is quite sufficiently
light for the subject.
“The magnitude of her resolution almost covers
the magnitude of her guilt. She is a great bad
woman whom we hate, but whom we fear more than
* P. 57, and also p. 183.
+ See the Charact., ii. 298. I do not quote them par-
tially, because I wish them to be read in the original.
908 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
we hate. She doth not excite our loathing and ab-
horrence like Regan and Gonerill. She is only wicked
to gain a great end, and is, perhaps, more distin-
guished by her commanding presence of mind, and
inexorable self-will, which do not suffer her to be
diverted from a bad purpose when once formed, by
weak and womanly regrets, than by the hardness of
her heart, or want of natural affection.”*
Much controversy has been expended on the
character of Macbeth himself. It has been said,
truly, that he is not the deliberate and reckless
villain which Richard III. is painted by Shak-
speare ; but it is added, that he is not essentially
a brave man. The late John Kemble, as I con-
ceive, triumphantly refuted this opinion, which
was published by a Mr.Whateley, and espoused
by Steevens.- It is not, or certainly it was not
a derogation from a man’s personal bravery, that
he was appalled by the prophecies of a witch ;
even in this age, one who believed a communi-
cation to be preternatural, would be allowed to
be awed by it, though he might hold a cannon-
ball in contempt. Kemble styles this the
noblest of tragedies, and it is natural that he
* Characters of Shakspeare’s Plays, p. 18.
+ See Remarks on some of the Characters of Shaks-
speare, 1785.— Macbeth and Richard III., by J. P.
Kemble, 1817; and Steevens’s note in Boswell.
MACBETH. 209
should prefer it to all others of Shakspeare,
because, assuredly of the historical plays, and
perhaps of all the plays, Othello alone ex-
cepted, it is the finest in representation. To
read, I own that it is, in my opinion, inferior
to some others, from the absence of the splendid
and stately speeches which I have noticed in
former plays,
CORIOLANUS.
As it is certain that Shakspeare did not apply
his great genius to the invention of plots, it was
natural that when in search of dramatic subjects,
he should look to the Roman History ; a history
with which the English youth are familiar, and
which is full of striking and romantic incidents.
It can hardly be said that we take our Roman
history from Shakspeare, because, in our system
of education, the history of that remarkable
people usually precedes that of our own country;
and we learn the story of Coriolanus from Eu-
tropius, or Goldsmith, if not from Plutarch,
before we go to see a play.
I shall not attempt to subject the three Latin
plays—Coriolanus, Julius Cesar, and Antony
and Cleopatra—to the sort of commentary which
I have applied to the plays from English his-
tory; nor do the materials exist for any such
examination: but I hope that the lovers of
CORIOLANUS. 211
historical truth, as well as the lovers of Shak-
speare,—who certainly constitute a class a hun-
dred-fold more numerous,— will allow me to
show whereon the great dramatist founded his
plays, and how far there is reason to believe
that the history is true. And there will be ample
opportunity for that which is by far the most
pleasing part of my task, the quotation of striking
passages from the works of this all-various poet.
I must further premise that the historical
criticisms of former commentators upon these
Roman plays, are more copious than upon the
English plays ;—probably because these learned
men were better acquainted with ancient than
with modern history. But, in their time, the
searching criticism of continental commentators,
and especially of Niebuhr, had not been applied
to the popular Roman story,—a fact which may
in itself justify a fresh commentary.
Shakspeare’s Coriolanus is taken from Sir
Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives ;
but it commences with a slight variation. Ac-
cording to the Greek biographer, and to other
received histories, the plebeians of Rome, about
the year 260, sixteen after the expulsion of
the Tarquins, retired, in consequence of their
difference with the patricians, to a hill near to
the city, which was afterwards called Mons Sacer.
912 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
The opening of the play (though placed in “a
street in Rome,”) is evidently meant to represent
this occurrence. But Shakspeare has not fol-
lowed Plutarch as to the cause of this separation,
or mutiny as he represents it. ‘The dearth of
corn, of which the citizens complain, did not
occur at this time; the present cause of com-
plaint arose of the severe laws of debtor and
creditor, which, while all the wealth was in the
hands of the patricians, enabled them to oppress
with cruel severity those plebeians who had been
compelled to become their debtors, and who were
consequently liable to be claimed as their slaves. *
And it was on this occasion that Menenius
Agrippa related the celebrated fable of the Belly
and the Members, and also that tribunes of
the people were first appointed.{ The complaint
* Niebuhr, i. 562; Arnold, i. 137. These writers say,
‘that where there were several creditors, they might
actually hew the body of the debtor in pieces, and whe-
ther a creditor cut off a greater or a smaller piece than
in proportion to its debt, he incurred no penalty.” It is,
they say, a modern error, that the cutting up was to be
understood of the debtor’s property, not of his person.
Tt is with difficulty that I can believe them right!
+ Malone says (Bosw. xiv. 12, and ii. 457), that Shak-
speare must have taken his version of the fable, in part,
from Camden’s Remains ; but I think that North is suf-
ficient. t North, 187.
CORIOLANUS. 213
was, not of power usurped, or arbitrarily used by
an aristocracy privileged by birth, so much as of
“the rich men who had driven them out of the
city ...... and that they were hurt with continual
wars and fighting in defence of the rich man’s
goods.” It was the moneyed aristocracy* by which
they were oppressed. And though the old man,
in the moral of his fable, likens the nourishment
afforded by the belly to the wholesome counsels
of the senate, yet the fable itself rather describes
the possessors of wealth, who were said ‘“ to
send it out again for the nourishment of other
parts.”
It is in conformity with Plutarch that Corio-
lanus (now only known as Caius Marcius), is
represented as stern, contemptuous, and unpo-
pular ; and so of other remarkable traits of his
character.
«This man also is a good proof to confirm some
men’s opinions, that a rare and excellent wit un-
taught doth bring forth many good and evil things
together : as a fat soil that lieth unmanured bringeth
forth both herbs and weeds. For this Marcius’
natural wit and great heart did marvellously stir up
his courage to do and attempt notable acts. But,
on the other side, for lack of education, he was so
cholerick and impatient, that he would yield to no
living creature: which made him churlish, uncivil,
* See Keightley’s Hist. of Rome, p. 65.
914 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
and altogether unfit for any man’s conversation.
Yet men marvelling much at his constancy, that he
was never overcome with pleasure, nor money; and
how he would endure easily all manner of pains and
travels, therefore they well liked and commended
his shortness and temperancy. But for all that, they
could not be acquainted with him, as one citizen would
wish to be with another in the city, his behaviour
was so unpleasant to them, by reason of a certain
insolent and stern manner he had, which because
he was too lordly was disliked.......... As for others,
the only respect that made them valiant was, that
they hoped to have honour, but touching Marcius,
the only thing that made. him to love honour, was
the joy he saw his mother did take of him. For
that he thought nothing made him so happy and
honourable, as that his mother might hear everybody
praise and commend him, that she might always see
him return with a crown upon his head, and that
she might still embrace him with tears running down
her cheeks for joy.’’*
Compare,
“1st Cit. First, you know Caius Marcius is the
chief enemy to the people.
All, We know it, we know it. He’s a very dog
to the commonalty.
2d Cit. Consider you what services he has done
to his country ? |
lst Cit. Very well, and could be content to give
* North, 185, 186.
CORIOLANUS. 215
him good report for it, but that he pays himself
with being proud.
All. Nay, but speak not maliciously.
lst Cit. I say unto you, what he hath done fa-
mously, he did it to that end. Though soft-con-
scienced men can be content to say it was for his
country ; he did it to please his mother, and to be
partly proud, which he is, even to the altitude of
his mercy.”
There is nothing remarkable in the use made
by Shakspeare of the affair of Corioli, as related
by Plutarch.* Commentators} have noticed an
obvious anachronism, where the poet puts into
the mouth of Titus Lartius, a contemporary of
Coriolanus, a remark which Plutarch makes as
from himself.
‘For he was even such another as Cato would
have a soldier and a captain to be, not only terrible
and fierce to lay about him, but to make the enemy
afraid with the sound of his voice, and grimness of
his countenance.” t¢
* Acti. Se. 1, 2,4 to 11. + Bosw. 35.
t For other passages in which Plutarch is followed,
sometimes into error, see Bosw. 42, 63, 83, 102, 127;
see also p. 86, where Warburton says that at the period
of this story the people had no voice in the election of
consuls. The bishop speaks with more confidence than
any records justify.
916 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
«Thou wast a soldier
Even to Cato’s wish; not fierce and terrible
Only in strokes ; but, with thy grim looks, and
The thunder-like percussion of thy sounds,
Thou mad’st thine enemies shake, as if the world
Were feverous, and did tremble.”
The refusal of the tenth part of the booty,
the grant, by acclamation, of the surname,
CorioLtanus, the release of the poor man at
whose house in Corioli the Roman general.
lodged, are all equally from Plutarch.
Coriolanus stands for the consulate, being
proposed by the consul Cominius,* whom the
poet makes the channel of Plutarch’s own ac-
count of the warrior: following him so closely,
as even to copy this remark upon the peculiar
characteristic of the Romans :—
‘In those days valiantness was honoured in Rome
above all other virtues; which they call virtus, by
the name of virtue itself, as including in that general
name all other special virtues besides.”
“Com. It is held
That valour is the chiefest virtue, and
Most dignifies the haver.”
And he then relates the youthful deeds of
* According to Livy, Posthumus Cominius was consul
in the 262d year of Rome. According to Dionysius, in
the 261st.—-See Arnold, 552.
CORIOLANUS, AW
Marcius, as recorded by Plutarch, who says,
that the people, as well as the senate, were dis-
posed to elect him.
«There was not a man among the people, but was
ashamed of himself to refuse so valiant a man, and
one of them said to another, ‘ We must needs choose
him consul, there is no remedy.’ ”
And so the poet :—
“If he do require our voices, we ought not to
deny him.
2 Cit. We may, Sir, if we will.
1 Cit. We have power in ourselves to do it; but
it is a power that we have no power to do: for if he
show us his wounds, and tell us his deeds, we are to
put our tongue into those wounds and speak for
them ; so if he tell us his noble deeds, we must also
tell him our noble acceptance of them.” *
Plutarch says, that the plebeians at first elected
Coriolanus, and afterwards rejected him. Shak-
speare takes advantage of this, to represent
the great commander addressing the electors
with contumely and contempt; and the people
speedily repenting of being cajoled out of their
voices, and recalling them at the instigation of
their tribunes.
In this part of his play, Shakspeare evidently
writes con amore; and it is not only in the
* Actii. Se. 3.
VOL. II. L
218 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
mouth of the proud candidate himself that he
puts his favourite notions respecting popular
applause; which, however, he qualifies with
great propriety :—
“2 Officer. ’Tis thought of every one, Coriolanus
will carry it.
1 Off. That’s a brave fellow, but he’s vengeance
proud, and loves not the common people.
2 Off. Faith, there have been many great men
that have flatter’d the people that ne’er loved them,
and there may be many they have loved, they knew
not wherefore: so that if they love they know not
why, they flatter upon no better a ground : therefore,
for Coriolanus neither to care whether they love or
hate him, manifests the true knowledge he has in
their disposition; and out of his noble carelessness
lets them plainly see ’t.
1 Off. If he did not care whether he had their
love or no, he waved indifferently betwixt doing them
neither good nor harm; but he seeks their hate with
greater devotion than they can render it him, and
leaves nothing undone that may fully discover him
their opposite. Now, to seem to affect the malice
and displeasure of the people, is as bad as that which
he dislikes, to flatter for their love.
2 Off. He hath deserved worthily of his country ;
and his ascent is not by such easy degrees as those
who, having been supple and courteous to the people,
bonnetted, without any further deed, to heave them
CORIOLANUS., 219
at all into their estimation and report; but he hath
so planted his honours in their eyes, and his actions
in their hearts, that, for their tongues to be silent,
and not confess so much, were a kind of ingrateful
injury ; to report otherwise were a malice that, giving
itself the lie, would pluck rebuke and reproof from
every ear that heard it.
1 Of. No more of him; he is a worthy man.
Cor. Most sweet voices!
Better it is to die, better to starve,
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve.
Why in this wolvish gown should I stand here,
To beg of Hob and Dick, that do appear,
Their needless vouches ? Custom calls me to it :—
What custom wills in all things should we do'’t,
The dust on antique time would lie unswept,
And mountainous error be too highly heap’d
For truth to o’er-peer. Rather than fool it so,
Let the high office and the honour go
To one that would do thus.”
And when told by the tribunes that the people
refuse to confirm the election, he breaks out, in
strict accordance with the character and habits
assigned to him by Plutarch, and in spite of the
remonstrance of his friends :—
“« Cor. Now, as I live, I will.—My nobler friends,
I crave their pardons :
But for the mutable, rank-scented many,
Lee .
29) COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Let them regard me, as I do not flatter, and
Therein behold themselves : I say again,
In soothing them, we nourish ’gainst our senate
The cockle of rebellion, insolence, sedition,
Which we ourselves have plough’d for, sow’d, and
scatter’d,
By mingling them with us, the honour’d number ;
Who lack not virtue, no, nor power, but that
Which we have given to beggars.”
All this is taken, even verbally in some parts,
from a speech which Plutarch assigns to Corio-
lanus, in opposing a suggestion for delivering
out to the people, gratis, the corn that had been
purchased by the government in the time of
dearth ;—and further,
“Cor. Whoever gave that counsel to give forth
The corn of th’ store-house gratis, as ’twas us’d
Sometime in Greece—
(Though there the people had more absolute pow’r),
I say they nourish’d disobedience, fed
The ruin of the state.”
Much besides, to the effect of refusing the
demands of the people, lest concession should be
attributed to fear, is borne out by Plutarch ; but
Shakspeare, who was, I can have no doubt, what
we should now call an ultra-tory, adds much
also of his own :—
CORIOLANUS. 22]
** Cor. No, take more:
What may be sworn by, both divine and human,
Seal what I end withal !—This double worship,—
Where one part doth disdain with cause, the other
Insult without all reason; where gentry, title, wisdom,
Cannot conclude but by the yea and no
Of general ignorance,—it must omit
Real necessities, and give way the while
To unstable slightness, purpose so barr’d, it follows
Nothing is done to purpose. Therefore, beseech you,
You that will be less fearful than discreet ;
That love the fundamental part of state
More than you doubt the change of ’t, that prefer
A noble life before a long, and wish
To jump a body with a dangerous physick,
That’s sure of death without it, at once pluck out
The multitudinous tongue, let them not lick
The sweet which is their poison. Your dishonour
Mangles true judgment, and bereaves the state
Of that integrity which should become it ;
Not having power to do the good it would,
For the ill which doth control it.”
It is with skill and judgment, as well as with
sufficient general support from his authority,
that Shakspeare has ascribed to the influence of
Volumnia Coriolanus’s final appearance before
the people; when, though he had undertaken to
preserve moderation, he broke out in language
so violent as to cause the people to condemn
922 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
him to death—a sentence afterwards softened
to banishment from Rome.
«« When they expected to have heard very humble
and lowly words come from him, he began not only
to use his wonted boldness of speaking (which of
itself was very rough and unpleasant, and did more
aggravate his accusation, than purge his innocency),
but also gave himself in his words to thunder, and
moreover did look therewithal so grimly, as he made
no reckoning of the matter,”
The offer of service to the Volscians, and the
hostile approach to Rome, is a part of the story
of Coriolanus which one would gladly suppress ;
but it is told by his biographer. Shakspeare
has added some characteristic disavowals by the
citizens, of each man’s part in the banishment of
the enraged chief :—
‘* 1] Cit. For mine own part, when I said, Banish
him, I said, ’twas pity.
2 Cit. And so did I, and to say the truth, so did
very many of us. That we did, we did for the best,
and though we willingly consented to his banishment,
yet it was against our will. .. :
1 Cit. The gods be good to us! Come, masters,
let’s home. I ever said, we were in the wrong when
we banished him.
2 Cit. So did we all!”
CORIOLANUS. 223
It is now time to notice the female personages
of this interesting drama. Shakspeare intro-
duces us to the mother and wife of his hero,
and their friend Valeria. This last-mentioned
lady is mentioned by Plutarch, as the sister of
Publicola, and has a part assigned to her, as we
shall see presently. Of the wife, Virgilia, the
biographer only tells us that Coriolanus married
her at his mother’s request. ‘The poet had
therefore to model her by his own fancy, and he
has painted her with his usual skill, as Mrs.
Jameson says, so as to make ‘a fine contrast
between the haughty temper of Volumnia, her
admiration of the valour and high bearing of her
son, and her proud but unselfish love for him,
with the modest sweetness, and the conjugal
tenderness of his wife Virgilia.”*
In all that Mrs. Jameson says of Volumnia, I
fully concur ; yet it is remarkable that this lady,
though she cites North’s translation, has not
perceived that the ‘“‘admirable stroke of art”
which traces the achievements of Coriolanus to
his desire to please his mother, is not Shak-
speare’s, but Plutarch’s. I cannot quite agree
to bestow the epithet, graceful, upon the first
scenet in which the ladies are introduced. ‘The
¥ Charact. ii. 177. + Acti. Se. 3.
994. COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
visit of Valeria is from Plutarch, who tells us
that Virgilia was found with her children in her
lap; and the language of the ladies is unques-
tionably characteristic ; but the proof afforded of
young Marcius inheriting the spirit of his father,
in his cruelty to a butterfly, is not, I venture
to suggest, a pleasing, or graceful, addition by
the poet.
It has been often, and correctly, observed,
that Volumnia’s earnest and finally successful
address to her son,* is taken from Plutarch.
And the murder of the Roman general by the
Volscians, at the instigation of the jealous Tullus
Aufidius, is equally conformable to the old
book.
Such is the use which Shakspeare has made
of that which is now called The Legend of Co-
riolanus. Certainly, the story must be founded
upon legends or traditions, and these passing
over a great number of years; for its date is
given at the 260th, or, according to some, the
290th year of Rome, being nearly five hundred
years before the Christian era. Plutarch flou-
rished in the time of the Emperor Claudius; nor
have we any historian earlier than Livy, who
preceded Plutarch by little more than a cen-
* Actv. Se.3.
CORIOLANUS. 225
tury.* The story in Livy+ is not materially
different from Plutarch’s, and includes the
enmity between Coriolanus and the commons,
the successful embassy of the women, and various
other particulars. But the Greek has improved
upon the Roman, almost as much as the English-
man has improved upon the Greek: the hero’s
peculiar devotion to his mother, and all the nicer
traits of his character, are worked out by Plu-
tarch. Of those who preceded, Dionysius Hali-
carnessensis comes nearest to him, who describes
Coriolanus as one of the “ oligarchical patri-
cians,” who spoke openly and boldly against the
plebeians and their tribunes.t
Plutarch’s work is more evidently wrought
up for effect ; otherwise, Livy is hardly better
authority for what passed in the third century
of Rome. He is said to have founded his history,
in great part, upon the writings of older authors,
of which extracts have been given; but none of
these go farther back than the sixth century ; §
* Livy was born in 695, or fifty-eight years before
Christ. + Book ii, c. 23.
t See Spelman’s Dionysius, ii. b. vi, sect. 92, and b. viii.
sect. 19 and 21.
§ Fabius Pictor, the first of these, was cotemporary
with the second Punic war, about 529. Onall this, see
the History of Rome, published by the Useful Knowledge
Society, p. 43.
pee
296 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
indeed, if any written annals of the early Roman
history existed, it is not probable that they sur-
vived the burning of Rome by the Gauls, in
the year of Rome 372. If any less perishable
records of brass or stone survived the confla-
eration, they can be depended upon for nothing
beyond a name or a date.
Without underrating the critical labours of
Niebuhr, I would observe, that in respect of the
very early history, they are necessarily confined
to the destruction of the fabric of history which
he found in existence; re-construction was im-
possible, for want of materials. His ingenuity
may have been displayed in estimating probabi-
lities, but it was not possible for him to establish
facts. It is not even known what legends or
traditions existed in the time of Livy, still less
how far they were true. Niebuhr himself, though
he makes out a story from the histories, ends by
saying that ** the legend of Coriolanus has stifled
the historical tradition in its whole extent.”*
Antiquaries do not even quite agree, as to the
political character of * the people,” to whom, in
this story, Coriolanus was opposed. Shakspeare
styles them citizens, but this, according to some
recent authorities,} is precisely what they were
* 11, 242,
+ Especially Dr. Arnold, see his eleventh chapter.
CORIOLANUS, 227
not. On the contrary, they were those inhabi-
tants of Rome who were noé citizens. Dr. Ar-
nold uses patricians and burghers as synonimous
terms.
Yet Livy apparently speaks of the plebeians
as being, or as capable of being, citizens; but
Livy is not a good authority. His words are:
“« Civitas, secum ipsa discors, intestino inter patres,
plebemque, flagrabat odio, maximé proptu nexos ob es
alienum. Fremabant, se, foris pro libertate et im-
perio dimicantes, domi a civibus captis et oppres-
sos esse, latinemque in bello quam in pace, inter
hostes quam inter cives, libertatem plebis esse.’’*
In Baker’s translation,
‘* The state itself was torn in pieces by intestine
animosities between the patricians and commons,
on account, principally, of persons confined for debt ;
they complained that after fighting abroad for free-
dom and empire, they were made prisoners, and
oppressed by their countrymen at home, and that the
liberty of the commons was more secure in war than
in peace, amongst their foes than amongst their own
countrymen.”
It appears to me that Baker is right, in
translating cives, countrymen, or fellow-citizens :
* Livy, b. ii. sec, 23.
998 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
and this chiefly because, when the patricians and
plebeians came soon afterwards to terms,—the
services of the latter being required as the infan-
try of the army,—the principal concession was,
an edict that no Roman citizen should be bound
or confined so as to prevent his giving in his
name (for military service); and hereupon the
nexi (plebeians confined for debt) were set at
liberty.*
If I understand the theory of those who
hold that none were citizens of Rome but the
patricians, it is that these were descended from
the ancient inhabitants, at the time of Servius
Tullus, and that although the number of inha-
bitants was greatly increased by conquests and
other means, none of the new Romans (who
were chiefly employed in agriculture) were ad-
mitted to the privilege of citizenship: and that
populus included the patricians only, being con-
trasted with plebs, not synonimous, as we some-
times use it.
* “ Concioni deinde edicto addidit fidem, quo edixit,
ne quis civem Romanum vinctum aut clausum teneret,
quo minus ei nominis edendi apud consules potestas
fieret.. . . Hoc proposito edicto, et qui aderant, nexi
profiteri exemplo nomina; et undique ex totd urbe pro-
cipientium se ex privato quem retinendi jus creditori non
esset ; concursus in forum, ut sacramento dicerent, fieri.”’
Ib., sect. 24,
= ~~ ey ee ~
CORIOLANUS, 229
I have perhaps dwelt too long upon these
matters, upon which I am certainly incompetent
to pronounce an opinion; it is enough for us
that Shakspeare unquestionably contemplated a
populace, such as that which, in his time, as in
ours, existed in England.
Niebuhr does not mention the election of
Coriolanus to the consulate. I have noticed an
alleged mistake* (taken from Plutarch) in giv-
ing to the plebeians a share in the election ;
but I find no light thrown upon this subject by
the modern expositors of Roman history.
“The tragedy of Coriolanus is” (in Johnson’s
opinion) “‘ one of the most amusing of our author’s
performances. ‘The old man’s merriment in Mene-
nius, the lofty lady’s dignity in Volumnia, the bridal
modesty in Virgilia, the patrician and military haugh-
tiness in Coriolanus, the plebeian malignity and tri-
bunitian insolence in Brutus and Sicinius, make a
very pleasing and interesting variety ; and the various
revolutions of the hero’s fortune, fill the mind with
anxious curiosity.” >
Coriolanus is surely a very fine play, and jus-
tice is hardly done to it by the doctor. No
doubt it owed much, in our day, to Kemble;
but it 1s, even when read, a splendid drama. The
character of Coriolanus, though in small part of
* P. 212, + Ibid. 86.
930 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Shakspeare’s invention, is extremely well sus-
tained; and the criminality of his conduct (for
assuredly he was a great criminal,) is covered by
its magnificence ; a sort of character peculiarly
appropriate to tragedy ;—as profligacy covered
by kind-heartedness is the ground-work of suc-
cessful comedies. Of the ladies I have already
spoken. Old Menenius might have been praised
for something beyond merriment; and perhaps
the high political notions of Dr. Johnson make
him too severe upon the tribunes of the people,
whose hostility was certainly not unprovoked.
In Coleridge’s notice of this play, there is a
remarkable instance of error occasioned by not
searching Shakspeare’s authorities. He asks,
** Whether Cato was quoted, without, or in
contempt of historical information.”* I have
shewn that the passage was copied (but incor-
rectly) from Plutarch.t Coleridge and Schle-
gel differ as to Shakspeare’s contempt of the
plebeians; Schlegelf thinks it (as I do) very
marked and sincere; Coleridge, who wrote, I
believe, in the days of his ultra-whiggery, treats
it as a good-humoured laugh.”
* Lit. Rem., ii. 137.
+ See p. 215.
{ Com. de Lit. Dram, iii, 82.
231
- . JULIUS CHSAR.
Tuts play, which embraces a period of Roman
history somewhat less obscure than that which
we have lately reviewed, is also taken from Plu-
tarch; not entirely from the life of Ceesar,* but
partly from those of Brutus} and Antony.t A
question has been raised,§ whether Shakspeare
did not avail himself of the play of Julius
Cesar, written by William Alexander, Farl
of Sterline, and published in 1607,|| the
year in which, according to Malone, Shak-
speare composed his play. There is much simi-
larity between some passages in the two plays,1
* North’s Translation of Plutarch’s Lives, p. 612.
Ta BL ys t Ib. 754.
§ See Malone’s note in Bosw. xii. 2.
|| It is to be found in “ Recreations with the Muses,”
fol. 1637, p. 185.
q See Bosw. xii. 55, 56, 57, and Sterline, 217. See also
a passage in Bosw. 47 (as to putting Antony to death),
and Sterline, 225,
932 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
but none, as it strikes me, which may not have
arisen from the use of the same materials by the
two poets. And there are essential differences
also;—Lord Sterline taking no notice of the
speeches of Brutus and Antony.
Shakspeare’s play commences with the disaf-
fection of the tribunes, who are represented as
the adherents of Pompey, the offer of the crown
to Cesar by Mark Antony, and the stirring up
of Brutus by his brother-in-law Cassius, to rise
against Cesar. All this, with the placards thrown
into the house of Brutus, is taken from Plutarch,
but the depreciation of the personal bravery of
the dictator, as one of the means: used by Cas-
sius to excite his friend,* is Shakspeare’s own.
It has been strangely said to be taken from
Suetonius,f who relates the story of Czesar
saving himself by swimming, at the same time
holding his writings above the water, to keep
them dry. But this is mentioned by Suetonius,
among the instances of his fortitude or con-
stancy. Plutarch{ tells the story without com-
ment, but certainly with no view to depreciate
Cesar. Speaking generally, the topic may be
said to be judiciously chosen by one who wished
to excite jealousy of a man in power; but the
* Act.i. Sc.2. + Jul.64. — ¢ North, 609.
JULIUS CASAR. 233
selection is certainly not appropriate. The re-
mainder of the scene is skilful.
Ceesar’s apprehension of spare and reflecting
men, like Cassius, has better authority ;*—
“* Let me have men about me that are fat ;
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep of nights :
Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look ;
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.”
Again,
*« He reads much;
He is a great observer, and he looks
Quite through the deeds of men. He loves no plays,
As thou dost, Antony; he hears no musick :
Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort,
As if he mock’d himself, and scorn’d his spirit,
That could be mov’d to smile at any thing.”
The reflections of Brutus, on the eve of the
Ides of March, are well imagined ;—
“It must be by his death; and, for my part,
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. He would be crown’d :
How that might change his nature, there’s the ques-
tion.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder ;
And that craves wary walking. Crown him? That—
And then I grant we put a sting in him,
* North, 819.
934. COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins
Remorse from power : and to speak truth of Cesar,
I have not known when his affections sway’d
More than his reason. But ’tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition’s ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face :
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back ;
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend: so Cesar may ;
Then, lest he may, prevent. And since the quarrel
Will bear no colour, for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities :
And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg,
Which hatch’d, would as his kind grow mischievous;
And kill him in the shell.”
And,
‘* Since Cassius first did whet me against Cesar,
I have not slept.
Between the acting of a dreadful thing,
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream :
The genius, and the mortal instruments,
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.’’*
* Act ii. 00.23
JULIUS CAESAR. 235
Portia’s expostulation with her husband for
his want of confidence in her, when she exhibits
the self-inflicted wound, by which she thought
to convince him of her constancy, is from Plu-
tarch.
** T grant, I am a woman, but withal,
A woman that lord Brutus took to wife ;
I grant, I am a woman; but withal,
A woman well-reputed, Cato’s daughter.
Think you, I am no stronger than my sex,
Being so father’d and so husbanded ?
Tell me your counsels, I will not disclose them :
I have made strong proof of my constancy,
Giving myself a voluntary wound
Here, in the thigh; can I bear that with patience,
And not my husband’s secrets ?’’*
The exclusion of Cicero from the conspiracy,
and all the circumstances preliminary to the
murder, including the dreams of Calphurnia,
and Czesar’s apprehensions of evil on that parti-
cular day, rest upon the same authority. And
Plutarch represents Caesar as abandoning all
notion of safety or defence, so soon as he found
that Brutus was among his assailers.
Commentators have been puzzled,+ by the
insertion of Czesar’s address to Brutus, *‘¢ tu,
* Act ii. Sc.1. North, 821, 822. + Bosw. 78.
936 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Brute.” It is not in North, nor in Lord Ster-
line’s play ; nor even in Suetonius, where the
phrase is, “ And thou, my son,” and the origi-
nal is not in Latin, but in Greek. Where Shak-
speare found it, I cannot divine.
The apparent reconciliation between Mark
Antony and the murderers of his friend, is jus-
tified by Plutarch’s statement that they supped
together.* But it is chiefly in the orations of
Brutus and Antony that Shakspeare improves
upon his original.
** The next morning, Brutus and his confederates
came into the market-place to speak unto the people,
who gave them such audience that it seemed they
neither approved nor allowed the fact, for by their
great silence they shewed that they were sorry for
Cesar’s death, and also that they did reverence Bru-
tus. Now, the senate granted general pardon for all
that was past, and to pacify every man, ordained
besides that Cesar’s funeral should be honoured as a
god, and established all things that he had done;
and gave certain provinces also, and convenient
honours unto Brutus and his confederates, whereby
every man thought that all things were brought to
peace and quietness again. But when they had
opened Ceesar’s testament, and found a liberal legacy
of money bequeathed unto every citizen of Rome ; and
* North, 823.
JULIUS CESAR. 237
that they saw his body (which was brought into the
market-place) all bemangled with gashes of swords,
then there was no order to keep the multitude and
common people quiet, but they plucked up forms,
tables, and stools, and laid them all about the body,
and setting them afire, burnt the corpse.’’*
Again,
“When the people saw Brutus in the pulpit,
although they were a multitude of rake-hells of all
sorts, and had a good will to make some stir, yet
being ashamed to do it, for reverence they bare unto
Brutus, they kept silence to hear what he would say.
When Brutus began to speak, they gave him quiet
audience ; howbeit, immediately after, they showed
that they were not at all contented with the murder.
They (the senators) came to talk of Cz-
sar’s will and testament, and of his funeral and tomb.
Then Antonius, thinking good his testament should
be read openly, and also that his body should be
honourably buried, and not in hugger-mugger, lest
the people should thereby take occasion to be worse
offended, if they did otherwise, Cassius stoutly spake
against it, but Brutus went with the motion, and
agreed toit. . . . . When Cesar’s body was
brought into the market-place, Antonius making his
funeral oration in praise of the dead, according to
the ancient custom of Rome, and perceiving that his
* North’s Plutarch’s Cesar, p. 615.
938 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
words moved the common people to compassion, he
framed his eloquence to make their hearts yearn the
more, and taking Czesar’s gown all bloody, in his
hand, he layed it open to the sight of them all, shew-
ing what a number of cuts and holes it had upon it.
Therewith the people fell presently into such a rage
and mutiny, that there was no more order kept
among the common people.’’*
Out of this Shakspeare has constructed some
of the finest passages in the play ;—those with
which we are all familiar in our boyhood, pro-
bably even more than with those which illus-
trate the English history.
I quote the speeches in the market-place, and
the preliminary dialogue :—
** Cassius. Brutus, a word with you.—
You know not what you do; do not consent,
That Antony speak in his funeral.
Know you how much the people may be mov’d
By that which he will utter?
Brutus. By your pardon,
I will myself into the pulpit first,
And show the reason of our Cesar’s death,
What Antony shall speak, I shall protest
He speaks by leave and by permission ;
And that we are content that Cesar shall
* North, p. 823.—See also, in the Life of Antony, p.
759, a similar account.
JULIUS CAESAR, 239
Have all due rites, and lawful ceremonies ;
It shall advantage more than do us wrong.
Cas. I know not what may fall; I like it not.
Bru. Mark Antony, here, take you Cesar’s body,
You shall not in your funeral speech blame us,
But speak all good you can devise of Cesar,
And say, you do’t by our permission,
Else shall you not have any hand at all
About his funeral. And you shall speak,
In the same pulpit whereto I am going,
After my speech is ended.
Antony. Be it so;
I do desire no more.”
Mark Antony’s soliloquy follows, beginning —
“OQ pardon me, thon bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood !”
And then Brutus to the people, in the forum :
** Romans, countrymen, and lovers ; hear me for
my cause ; and be silent, that you may hear. Believe
me for mine honour, and have respect to mine
honour, that you may believe. Censure me in your
wisdom, and awake your senses that you may the
better judge. If there be any in this assembly, any
dear friend of Cesar’s, to him I say, that Brutus’s
love to Cesar was no less than his. If, then, that
240 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
friend demand why Brutus rose against Ceesar, this
is my answer :—not that I loved Czesar less, but that
I loved Rome more. Had you rather Cesar were
living and die all slaves, than Czesar were dead, to
live all freemen? As Cesar loved me, I weep for
him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him; but as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There are tears for his love; joy for his
fortune ; honour for his valour; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak, for him I have offended.
Who is here so rude, that would not be a Roman?
If any, speak, for him have I offended? Who is
here so vile, that will not love his country? If any,
speak, for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.
All. None, Brutus, none.
Bru. 'Then none have I offended. I have done
no more to Cesar, than you shall do to Brutus.
The question of his death is enrolled in the capitol :
his glory not extenuated, wherein he was worthy ;
nor his offences enforced, for which he suffered
death |”
Warburton says, that ‘¢ this speech is in imita-
tion of Brutus’s famed laconic brevity, and is
very fine in its kind, but no more like that bre-
vity than the times were like Brutus’s.”*
Of the similarity I do not pretend. to judge ;
* Bosw., 92.
JULIUS CASAR. 241
but the speech is surely a very skilful perform-
ance, and the oratory of the downright Brutus
is well contrasted with that of the artful and
facund Antony :—
** Ant. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your
ears.
I come to bury Cesar, not to praise him ;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones :
So let it be with Cesar! The noble Brutus
Hath told you, Cesar was ambitious :
If it were so, it was a grievous fault ;
And grievously hath Czesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest
(For Brutus was an honourable man,
So are they all, all honourable men),
Come I to speak in Czesar’s funeral ;
He was my friend, faithful and just to me ;
But Brutus says, he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill :
Did this in Cesar seem ambitious ?
When that the poor have cried, Cesar hath wept ;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff :
Yet Brutus says, he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see, that, on the Lupercal,
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
VOL, II. M
942 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition ?
Yet Brutus says, he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause; ,
What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him?
O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason! Bear with me,
My heart is in the coffin there with Cesar,
And I must pause ’till it come back to me.”
This pause gives an opportunity to the people,
as Antony intended that it should, of expressing
to each other the feeling which he had excited :—
“« Cesar has had great wrong.”
Antony resumes his speech—
‘‘ But yesterday the word of Cesar might
Have stood against the world : now lies he there,
And none so poor to do him reverence.
O masters ! if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men.
I will not do them wrong, I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself, and you,
Than I will wrong such honourable men.
But here’s a parchment, with the seal of Ceesar,
I found it in his closet, ’tis his will ;
JULIUS CASAR. 243
Let but the commons hear this testament
(Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read),
And they would go and kiss dead Ceesar’s wounds,
And dip their napkins in his sacred blood ;
Yea, beg a hair of him for memory,
And, dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it, as a rich legacy,
Unto their issue.”
Then, when the people call for the will—
“« Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it ;
It is not meet you know how Cesar lov’d you ;
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men ;
And being men, hearing the will of Czesar,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad.
’*Tis good you know not that you are his heirs ;
For if you should, O what would come of it !”’
The citizens* are still urgent—
** Read the will; we will hear it, Antony ;
You shall read us the will, Ceesar’s will.
Ant. Will you be patient ? will you stay awhile?
I have o’ershot myself to tell you of it.
I fear I wrong the honourable men,
Whose daggers have stabb’d Cesar ; I do fear it.
4 Cit. They were traitors. Honourable men!
Cit. The will! the testament !
2 Cit. They were villains, murderers. The will,
read the will.
* The people are so called in Boswell’s edition ;
Johnson and Steevens style them plebeians.
M 2
244 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Ant. You will compel me, then, to read the will ?
Then make a ring about the corpse of Cesar,
And let me shew you him that made the will.
Shall I descend? and will you give me leave ?”
They invite him to come down, calling out—
‘“ Room for Antony ; most noble Antony ;”
and he once more addresses them, standing over
the mangled corpse of his friend, and exhibiting
his cloak.
‘« Tf you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle ; I remember
The first time Cesar ever put it on;
*T'was on a summer’s evening, in his tent ;
That day he overcame the Nervii.
Look in this place, ran Cassius’ dagger through :
See what a rent the envious Casca made ;
Through this, the well-beloved Brutus stabb’d ;
And as he pluck’d his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Cesar followed it;
As making out of doors, to be resolv’d
If Brutus so unkindly knock’d, or no ;
For Brutus, as you know, was Cesar’s angel :
Judge, O ye gods, how dearly Cesar lov’d him !
This was the most unkindest cut of all:
For when the noble Cesar saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms,
Quite vanquish’d him; then burst his mighty heart ;
And in his mantle mufiling up his face,
JULIUS CASAR. 245
E’en at the base of Pompey’s statue,
Which all the while ran blood, great Ceesar fell.
O, what a fall was there, my countrymen !
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish’d over us.
O, now you weep, and I perceive you feel
The dint of pity : those are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you, when you but behold
Our Czesar’s vesture wounded ?—Look you here,
Here is himself, marr’d, as you see, with traitors.”
The people begin to cry,
*« O piteous spectacle !”—
And soon the subtle poison works.
“We will be revenged: revenge; about, seek,
—burn,—fire,—kill,—slay,—let not a traitor live.”
Antony pretends to attempt to pacify them.
«¢ Ant. Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir
you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable ;
What private griefs they have, alas! I know not,
That made them do it; they are wise, and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reason answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts,
I am no orator, as Brutus is:
But as you know me all, a plain, blunt man,
That love my friend, and that they know full well,
That gave me public leave to speak of him.
946 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men’s blood, I only speak right on:
I tell you that which you yourselves do know,
Shew you sweet Cesar’s wounds, poor, poor, dumb
mouths !
And bid them speak forme. But were I Brutus,
And Brutus Antony, there were an Antony
Would ruffle up your spirits, and put a tongue
In every wound of Cesar, that should move
The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.”
It may well be supposed that this artful
harangue is followed by a general cry for mu-
tiny ; but Antony takes care to add fresh fuel
to the flame which he had raised ; he now reads
the will, by which Ceesar has left seventy-four
drachms to every Roman citizen, and all his
gardens as a public walk: and he dismisses the
infuriated mob, in the mind to do mischief ;—
** We'll burn his body in the holy place,
And with the brands fire all the traitors’ houses.”
Antony’s speeches, and the whole of this
scene,* are, in my opinion, equal to the very best
efforts of Shakspeare’s genius; indeed, I know
few passages of equal merit.
We had heard in the third act of the arrival
of Octavius at Rome; and the fourth act brings
* Act.iii, Sea,
JULIUS CASAR. 247
us to the meeting of Antony, Octavius, and Le-
pidus, the self-appointed triumvirs, in a small
island near Mutina.*
Ceesar was slain in March ‘707, and this meet-
ing of leaders occurred in 709. In the interval
there had been violent dissensions between the
friend of Julius Czesar and his nephew. Their
quarrels had reference to Ceesar’s property, to
which (subject to the bequest to the Roman
people,) Octavius was heir; as well as to ques-
tions of political power. Cicero, the advocate
of republican principles, had taken part against
Antony.+ At the point of time selected by
Shakspeare for renewing the narrative, Antony
and Octavius were acting together as friends,
having associated with them Lepidus, who had
the command of an army in Gaul, and had sided
with Antony. An extensive and bloody pro-
scription followed, with which the scene opens.
I do not know why Antony is represented as
objecting to Lepidus,—
«« This is a slight unmeritable man,
Meet to be sent on errands ; is it fit,
The threefold world decided, he should stand,
One of the three to share it?
* Such is the heading of the scene, but Shakspeare
appears to have placed the conference at Rome.
+ North’s Antony, p. 760.
948 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Octav. You may do your will,
But he’s a tried and valiant soldier.
Ant. So is my horse, Octavius ; and for that,
I do appoint him store of provender,
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on ;
His corporal motion govern’d by my spirit.”
By this time Brutus and Cassius were in arms
against Antony and his associates ; and we have
now the most celebrated scene in the play, the
quarrel and reconciliation of the two conspira-
tors. It is founded upon Plutarch ;—*
‘** Men reputed Cassius to be very skilful in wars,
but otherwise marvellous cholerick and cruel, who
sought to rule men by fear, rather than with lenity ;
and on the other side he was too familiar with his
friends, and would jest too broadly withthem. But
Brutus, in contrary manner, for his virtue and valiant-
ness, was well beloved of the people and his own;
esteemed of noblemen, and hated of no man; not so
much as of his enemies, because he was a marvellous
lowly and gentle person, noble-minded, and would
never be in any rage, nor carried away with pleasure
and covetousness, but had ever an upright mind with
him, and would never yield to any wrong or injus-
tice, the which was the chiefest cause of his fame, of
his rising, and of the good-will that every man bore
* P. 827.
JULIUS CAESAR. 249
him ; for they were all persuaded that his intent was
good. . . . . Now, whilst Brutus and Cassius
were together in the city of Smyrna, Brutus prayed
Cassius to let him have some part of his money,
whereof he had great store, because all that he could
rap and rend of his side, he bestowed in making so
great a number of ships, that by reason of them they
should keep the sea at their commandment. Cassius’
friends hindered this request, and earnestly dissuaded
him from it, persuading that it was no reason that
Brutus should have the money which Cassius had got
together by sparing, and levied with great evil will
of the people, their subjects, for him to bestow libe-
rally upon his soldiers, and by this means to win
their good-wills, by Cassius’ charge. . .«
Brutus sent to pray Cassius to come to the city of
Sardis, and so he did. Brutus understanding of his
coming went to meet him, with all his friends. There
both the armies being arrived, they called them both
Emperors.* Now, as it commonly happens in great
affairs between two persons, both of them having
many friends, and so many captains under them,
there ran tales and complaints betwixt them ; there-
fore, before they fell in hand on any other matter,
they went into a little chamber together, and bade
every man avoid, and did shut the doors to them.
Then they began to pour out their complaints one to
the other, and grew hot and loud, earnestly accusing
* Imperator.
M 3
950 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
one another, and at length fell both a weeping.
Their friends that were without the chamber, hear-
ing them loud within, and angry between themselves,
they were both amazed and afraid also, lest it would
grow to further matter, but yet they were com-
manded that no man should come to them.
The next day after, Brutus, upon the complaint of
the Sardians, did condemn and note Lucius Pella,
for a défamed person, that had been a przetor of the
Romans, and whom Brutus had given charge unto ;
for that he was accused and convicted of robbery,
and pilfering in his office. This judgment much mis-
liked Cassius, because he himself had secretly, not
many days before, warned two of his friends attained
and convicted of the like offences, and openly had
cleared them, but yet he did not lean to employ
them in any manner of service as he did before. And
therefore he greatly reproved Brutus for that he
would show himself so straight and severe, in such
a time as was meeter to bear a little than to take
things at the worst. Brutus in contrary manner
answered, that he should remember the Ides of
March, at which time they killed Julius Cesar, who
neither pilled nor polled the country, but only was a
favourer and suborner of all them that did rob and
spoil, by his countenance and authority. And if there
were any occasion wherein they might honestly set
aside justice and equity, they should have had more
reason to have suffered Ceesar’s friends to have
JULIUS CAESAR, 251
robbed and done what injury they would, than to
bear with their own men. For then, said he, they
could but have said they had been cowards, but now
they may accuse us of injustice, besides the pains we
take, and the danger we put ourselves into.”
Shakspeare has wrought up these materials
into an admirable scene ;* in which, while some
of the speeches are almost copied from Plutarch,
the interest and feeling of the dialogue are much
heightened by some slight touches of the pcet’s
hand, and these are in no way inconsistent with
the characters which history has assigned to
Brutus and Cassius :—
** Remember March, the Ides of March remember !
Did not great Julius bleed for justice sake ?
What villain touch’d his body that did stab
And not for justice ? What shall one of us
That struck the foremost man in all the world,
But for supporting robbers, shall we now
Contaminate our fingers with base bribes ?
And sell the mighty space of our large honours,
For so much trash as may be grasped thus ?
I’d rather be a dog and bay the moon
Than such a Roman!
Again—
There is no terror, Cassius, in thy threats,
For I am armed so strong in honesty,
* Activ. Se. 3.
952 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
That they pass by me, as the idle wind,
Which I respect not. I did send to you
For certain sums of gold, which you deny’d me;
For I can raise no money by vile means :
By Heaven, I had rather coin my heart
And drop my blood for drachmas, than to wring
From the hard hands of peasants their vile trash
By any indirection. |
Cass. Brutus hath riv’d my heart.
A friend should bear a friend’s infirmities,
And Brutus makes mine greater than they are.
You love me not.
Bru. I do not like your faults.
Cas. A friendly eye could never see such faults.
Bru. A flatterer’s would not, though they doappear
As high as huge Olympus.
Cass. Come, Antony, and young Octavius, come;
Revenge yourself alone on Cassius,
For Cassius is a-weary of the world:
Hated by one he loves ; brav’d by his brother,
Check’d like a bondman, all his faults observ’d,
Set in a note-book, learn’d, and conn’d by rote,
To cast into my teeth. O, I could weep
My spirit from my eyes !”
(Cassius offers his breast.)
Strike, as thou didst at Cesar; for I know,
When thou did’st hate him worst, thou lov’dst
him better .
Than ever thou loy’dst Cassius.
Bru. Sheath your dagger :
JULIUS CAESAR. 253
Be angry when you will, it shall have scope ;
Do what you will, dishonour shall be humour.
O, Cassius, you are yoked with a lamb,
That carries anger, as the flint bears fire ;
Who, much enforced, shews a hasty spark,
And straight is cold again.
Cass. Hath Cassius liv’d
To be but mirth and laughter to his Brutus,
When grief, and blood ill-temper’d, vexeth him ?
Bru. When I spoke that, I was ill-temper’d too.
Cass. Do you confess so much? Give me your
hand.
Bru. And my heart too.
Cass. O, Brutus!
Bru. What’s the matter ?
Cass. Have you not love enough to bear with me,
When that rash humour which my mother gave me,
Makes me forgetful ?
Bru. Yes, Cassius, and from henceforth,
When you are over-earnest with your Brutus,
I'll think your mother chides, and leave you so.”
The interruption by a cynical poet is from
Plutarch ; and so Portia’s suicide by swallowing
fire, but not the stoical indifference with which
Brutus hears the news of her death.*
The appearance of Cesar’s ghost, and other
* It is not quite intelligible in the play. First, Brutus
tells Cassius of his wife’s death ; and presently it is
broken to him by Messala.
954 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
principal incidents of the period which preceded
the battle of Philippi, are also in Plutarch; as
is also the dialogue between Brutus and Cassius
as to the disposal of themselves, in the event of
defeat : —
“« Cass. If we do lose this battle, then is this
The very last time we shall speak together.
What are you then determined to do?
Bru. Even by the rule of that philosophy
Whereby I did blame Cato for the death
Which he did give himself; I know not how,
But I do find it cowardly and vile,
For fear of what might fall, so to prevent
The time of life: arming myself with patience,
To stay the providence of some high powers
That govern us below.”
Cassius, understanding this speech to mean,
as it certainly does, that Brutus would not de-
stroy himself, even in the event of defeat, asks
him whether he would be contented to be led
through Rome as a captive? Brutus answers,
that he “ bears too great a mind for this ;” and
he takes an everlasting farewell of his friend,
lest they should not meet again.
This is not very consistent, and the inconsis-
tency arises from Shakspeare’s misreading of the
first speech ; for Brutus (according to North)*
* P, 831.
JULIUS CAESAR. 256
referred to his opinion against suicide, as one
which he had entertained in youth, but had now
abandoned. Steevens says,* that the passage in
North might easily be misunderstood ; this I
partly admit, but Shakspeare’s adoption of a
version contradicted, not only by a passage
immediately following, but by the event which
he presently pourtrays, is a striking instance of
his careless use of his authorities.
In the events of the battle of Philippi, and the
suicide of Cassius and Brutus, Shakspeare fol-
lows Plutarch, by whom the short but remark-
able speech of Antony over Brutus, is also sug-
gested :—
*« It was said that Antonius spake it openly divers
times, that he thought that of all them that had slain
Cesar, there was none but Brutus only that was
moved to do it, as thinking the act commendable of
itself; but that all the other conspirators did con-
spire his death for some private malice or envy that
they otherwise did bear unto him.” +
«© Ant. This was the noblest Roman of them all!
All the conspirators, save only he,
Did that they did in envy of great Cesar ;
* Bosw., 138. The perplexity arises from North put-
ting J trust in the present tense. The original is in the
past tense. See North, p. 831 ; Langhorne, vi. 231; and
Plutarch, i. 1002.
TE 827.
956 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
He only in a general honest thought,
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life the gentle, and the elements,
So mix’d in him, that Nature might stand up,
And say to all the world, This was a man !”
We have seen that Plutarch was Shakspeare’s
authority. Plutarch, however, was not born
for an hundred years after Ceesar’s death; nor,
with the exception of Velleius Paterculus, has
any historian a greater right than Plutarch to
be deemed a cotemporary. Ferguson* quotes
Appian, Suetonius, and Dion Cassius, as well
as Plutarch; but all of them flourished many
years after him.f Although, therefore, the
authority of the Grecian biographer may not
stand high, there is no other by which to cor-
rect him; for the history of Velleius Pater-
culus is too meagre to be compared with Plu-
tarch.
The orations and letters of Cicero throw some
light upon the events of this time, and where
they are applicable, they are by far the most
valuable authority; and any modern history
which makes use of these, for instance, Dr. Mid-
* History of the Progress and Termination of the
Roman Republic, iii. 34, 203. :
+ According to Dibdin (Introd. to Classics), Plutarch
died 120 years after Christ; Appian, 143; Suetonius,
160; Dion Cassius, 229,
JULIUS CAESAR, 257
dleton’s life of this great man, in which a copious
use is made‘of his writings, is really a more
valuable history than any of those traditionary
narratives to which we are in the habit of refer-
ring. |
But it is enough that I advert to a few pro-
minent circumstances,
We have Cicero’s authority for the offer of
the crown to Cesar.* I do not anywhere find
that Cassius was the instigator of Brutus. From
some accounts, it would rather appear that Bru-
tus was the original suggester of the plot ;+ and
Cicero always speaks of him as a leader in the
affair. For the “ Et tu, Brute,” I find no autho-
rity in Cicero, nor, indeed, in those words, any-
where. It is clear that Antony was professedly
on good terms with the conspirators soon after
Ceesar’s death; and that he procured a decree
for confirming all the acts of Cesar.t He also
procured a public funeral for his deceased friend ;
at which he managed to excite the populace, or
at least a number of persons who were assem-
bled on the occasion, to attack the houses or
persons of Czesar’s enemies. §
There is this much of foundation for Plu-
* Philipp. ii. 34. + Dion Cassius, |4.
{ Middleton, iii, 13, from Philipp. i.
§ Cicero to Atticus, lib, xiv. Ep. 10.
958 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
tarch’s account of the speeches over Cesar’s
body, on which Shakspeare has formed his splen-
did scene. According to Dion Cassius, Antony
made a very long speech. For this the historian
probably drew upon his own imagination ; for
although the omission, by later historians, and
still more by Velleius Paterculus, of some of the
circumstances narrated by Plutarch, may throw
a doubt upon the accuracy of that writer: it is
equally certain, that where Plutarch has left
only an outline, his followers could not possess
authentic materials for filling it up. Their de-
tails, therefore, may well be doubted. I am,
nevertheless, tempted to give (in Ferguson’s
translation of Dion Cassius,) the peroration of
the speech ascribed to Antony :—
‘On the subject of his administration of the state,
I need not make any observation to you. You were
witnesses of his conduct. Descended of your an-
cient kings, he had more glory in refusing a crown
that was offered to him, than they had in wearing it
with all its honours. You loved him, you set him at
the head of your priesthood, at the head of your
army, at the head of the republic ; you declared his
person sacred as that of your tribunes; you declared
him the father of his country; you showed him to
the world, adorned with the ensigns of sovereign
power—your dictator—your guardian, and the terror
JULIUS CESAR. 259
of your enemies. But he isno more! This sacred
person is now breathless before you. The father of
his country is dead: not, alas ! of disease, not of the
decline of years, not by the hands of foreign ene-
mies, not far from his own country; but here,
within your walls, in the Roman senate, in the
vigour of health, in the midst of all his designs for
your prosperity and glory. He who often repelled
the swords of his enemies, has fallen by the hands
of treacherous friends, or by the hands of those
whom his clemency had spared. But what availed his
clemency ? What availed the laws with which he so
anxiously guarded the lives of his fellow-citizens?
His own he could not guard from traitors. His man-
gled body, and his grey hairs clotted with blood, are
now exposed in that forum which he so often adorned
with his triumphs, and near to that place of public
debate from which he so often captivated the people
of Rome with his eloquence.”’*
There is some foundation for the jealousies
existing between Brutus and Cassius ; but these
took their rise from circumstances which pre-
ceded Ceesar’s death ; and there must have been
some difference between the conduct of the one
and of the other in respect of money matters, as
Cassius was well provided, while Brutus was in
* Ferguson, ili.68. Dion Cassius, lib. xliv. 49.
960 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
want.* That they both committed suicide,+ there
is no reason to doubt, and none certainly of their
previous defeat at Philippi. The suicide of Por-
tia is less positively known. Into further details
I do not think it necessary to go.
“Of this tragedy,” (says Johnson,) ‘‘ many par-
ticular scenes deserve regard, and the contentions
and reconcilement of Brutus and Cassius is univer-
sally celebrated ; but I have never been strongly agi-
tated in perusing it, and think it somewhat cold and
unaffecting, compared with some others of Shak-
speare’s plays: his adherence to the real story, and
to Roman manners, seems to have impeded the natu-
ral vigour of his genius.’’}
I doubt whether Dr. Johnson was strongly
agitated in reading any of these plays; but,
surely, the scenes which he praises, that to which
I have ventured even to give the preference, and
some others, are calculated to move the feelings
of a more susceptible man. 'The intense and
continuous interest, which is thought essential
to modern stories, whether in drama or novel,
can scarcely be expected in an historical play,
nor indeed was it Shakspeare’s object.
_ It has been said, that Shakspeare has not made
* Middl. iii. 272, from Appian, 1. iv. 667.
+ Vell. Patere. t Bosw. 156.
JULIUS CASAR. 261
enough of the character of Czesar. And it is true
that Cesar has little to do, but to appear and be
slain. It is remarkable that the more modern
translator of Plutarch*, makes the same observa-
tion as to the biographer himself. If it be just
as to the dramatist, I claim it asa corroboration
of my remark,+ upon the slight attention which
Shakspeare paid to his historical characters. The
conversation with Antony about fat men, and with
Calphurnia about her dreams, came conveniently
into his plan; and some lofty expressions could
hardly be avoided, in pourtraying one who was
known to the whole world as a great conqueror.
Beyond this, our poet gave himself no trouble.
Schlegel says,{ that Shakspeare has been blamed
for making Caesar boast ; and Boswell § adduces
the boastful speech of Czesar, when warned of
his danger by Calphurnia, as “a proof of Shak-
speare’s deficiency in classical knowledge.” In
Plutarch, certainly there is no assertion of cou-
rage, and Ceesar is made to go out with some re-
luctance: yet I see no force in these criticisms.
Cesar might write modestly of his own deeds,
but surely, a strong sense of his own superiority
was one of his characteristics ; and his readiness
* Langhorne, vi. 78. + See p. 171.
t Cours, de Lit. Dram, iii. 83. § P. 64,
962 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
to brave danger was, on the present occasion,
necessarily avowed.
Doubtless, not Cesar, but Brutus, is the hero
of the piece. Concerning this great man, and his
self-debate as to the murder of Cesar, hear a
curious remark from Coleridge ;—
«« This speech (it must be by his death, see p.
233,) is singular; at least I do not at present see
into Shakspeare’s motive, his rationale, or in what
point of view he meant Brutus’s character to appear.
For surely—(this, I mean, is what I say to myself,
with my present quantum of insight, only modified
by my experience in how many instances I have
ripened into a perception of beauties where I had
before descried faults ;)—surely, nothing can seem
more discordant with our historical preconception of
Brutus, or more lowering to the intellect of the
stoico-platonic tyrannicide,, than the tenets here
attributed to him—to him, the stern Roman repub-
lican ; namely—that he would have no objection to a
king, or to Cesar as monarch in Rome, would Cesar
but be as good a monarch as he now seems disposed
to be! How, too, could Brutus say that he found
no personal cause—none in Cesar’s past conduct as
aman? Had he not passed the rubicon? Had he
not entered Rome asa conqueror? Had he not placed
his Gauls in the senate ?—-Shakspeare, it may be said,
has not brought these things forward. True, and
JULIUS CAESAR. 263
this is just the ground of my perplexity. What cha-
racter did Shakspeare mean Brutus to be ?”
Here is another illustration of my remark. I
might answer to Coleridge—that Shakspeare did
not form in his own mind a precise notion of the
political sentiments of Brutus. But, in truth, I
perceive nothing strange in the passage, as the
speech of a republican. Brutus says that he will
kill Caesar, because he is powerful, and may
abuse his power: and the passages of his life, to
which Coleridge refers, gave Brutus no personal
cause of offence, though much “ for the general.”
No character in Shakspeare is better sustained
than that of Brutus, though the copying (above
noticed*) of North’s mistake, justifies me in say-
ing that here, as elsewhere, Shakspeare was con-
tented with his authority.
Portia is well drawn from the original ; Casca
is, I believe, Shakspeare’s own, and makes a
judicious variety. I regard Julius Cesar as an
excellent play.
* P, 255.
264
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.
ALTHOUGH every body has a general acquain-
tance with the story of this play, we are less
familiar with the play itself (which is never
acted), than with the other plays of Shakspeare ;
nor is there much reason of any sort for dwelling
long upon it.
Like the others, it is taken from Plutarch,*
who is followed with remarkable exactness. It
opens at that point of history in which Antony
was first at Alexandria with Cleopatra, by whose
beauty and artifice he had been captivated, when
he summoned her to meet him in Cilicia, while
he was on his way to make war upon the Par-
thians. The passage in which her voyage is
described is almost verbatim from Antony’s
biographer ;—
* North’s Antony, p. 762.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, 265
“ Enobarbus. The barge she sat in, like a burnish’d
throne,
Burnt on the water ; the poop was beaten gold,
Purple the sails, and so perfum’d, that
The winds were love-sick with ’em; the oars were
silver ;
Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made
The water, which they beat, to follow faster,
As amorous of their strokes. For her own person,
It beggar’d all description: she did lie
In her pavilion (cloth of gold, of tissue),
O’er picturing that Venus, where we see
The fancy out-work nature. On each side her
Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids,
With many-coloured fans, whose wind did seem
To glow the delicate cheeks which they did cool,
And what they undid, did.
Her gentlewomen, like the Nereides,
So many mermaids, tended her i’ the eyes
And made their bends adornings : at the helm
A seeming mermaid steers; the silken tackles
Swell with the touches of those flower-soft hands,
That yarely frame the office. From the barge
A strange invisible perfume hits the sense
Of the adjacent wharfs. The city cast
Her people out upon her; and Antony,
Enthron’d in market-place, did sit alone,
Whistling to th’ air; which, but for vacancy,
VOL. II. N
266 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
Had gone to gaze on Cleopatra too,
And made a gap in nature.’’*
I imitate former commentators, in placing
near to this celebrated passage the equally noted
description of the same voyage by Dryden, who
puts it in the mouth of Antony himself :—
‘“« Her galley down the silver Cydnus row’d,
The tackling silk, the streamers waved with gold ;
The gentle winds were lodged in purple sails :
Her nymphs, like Nereids, round her couch were
plac’d ;
Where she, another sea-born Venus, lay.
She lay, and lent her cheek upon her hand,
And cast a look so languishingly sweet,
As if, secure of all beholders’ hearts,
Neglecting, she could take them: boys, like Cupids,
Stood fanning, with their painted wings, the winds
That play’d about her face; but if she smiled,
A darting glory seem’d to blaze abroad,
That man’s desiring eyes were never wearied,
But hung upon the object: to soft flutes
The silver oars kept time, and while they play’d,
The hearing gave new pleasure to the sight,
And both to thought. ’I'was heav’n or somewhat
more :
For she so charm’d all hearts, that gazing crowds
* Actii. Sc.2. See North, 763.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. 267
Stood panting on the shore, and wanted breath
To give their welcome voice.’’*
In the first act of Shakspeare’s play, the
infatuated Antony has just heard of the pro-
ceedings of his wife, Fulvia, who had quarrelled
and made war with Lepidus, and afterwards with
Octavius Cesar; and he is told that Labienus
(a Roman and follower of Brutus) had been
victorious in Asia, at the head of a Parthian
army. Immediately afterwards, Antony hears
of Fulvia’s death ; whereon he makes this re-
mark ;—
‘«« There’s a great spirit gone! Thus did I desire it :
What our contempts do often hurl from us,
We wish it ours again; the present pleasure,
By revolution lowering, does become
The opposite of itself; she’s good, being gone ;
The hand could pluck her back that shov’d her on.
I must from this enchanting queen break off ;
Ten thousand harms, more than the ills I know,
My idleness doth hatch.”
Plutarch describes the Queen of Egypt (now
about twenty-nine years of age), as a woman
more celebrated for her powers of conversation
than even for her beauty ;—
“ Her beauty (as it is reported) was not so pass-
* All for Love, Act iii. Sc.1. Works, v. 361.
N2
268 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
ing as unmatchable with other women, nor yet such
as, upon present view, did enamour men with her ;
but so sweet was her company and conversation, that
a man could not possibly but be taken. And besides
her beauty, the good grace she had to talk and dis-
course, her courteous nature that composed her
words and deeds, was a spur that pricked to the
quick. Furthermore, besides all these, her voice
and words were marvellous pleasant, for her tongue
was an instrument of music to divers sports and pas-
times, the which she easily turned into any language
that pleased her.”
Shakspeare has made good use of Plutarch’s
hint; and has well painted the fascinating
queen, playing with the captivated conqueror,
when the news from Rome summons him into
Italy. He has just told her, very coldly, of his
wife’s death ;—
“* Cleo. O most false love!
Where be the sacred vials thou shouldst fill
With sorrowful water? Now I see, I see,
In Fulvia’s death, how mine shall be received.
Ant. Quarrel no more, but be prepared to know
The purposes I bear; which are, or cease,
As you shall give the advices. By the fire
That quickens Nilus’ slime, I go from hence,
Thy soldier, servant ; making peace, or war,
As thou affect’st.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. 269
Cleo. Cut my lace, Charmian, come :—
But, let it be—I’m quickly ill, and well;
So Antony loves.
Ant. My precious queen, forbear ;
And give true evidence to his love, which stands
An honourable trial.
Cleo. So Fulvia told me.
I pr’ythee, turn aside, and weep for her ;
Then bid adieu to me, and say, the tears
Belong to Egypt. Good now, play one scene
Of excellent dissembling, and let it look
Like perfect honour.
Ant. You'll heat my blood—no more.
Cleo. You can do better yet, but this is meetly.
Ant. Now, by my sword,—
Cleo. And target.—Still he mends ;
But this is not the best ; look, pr’ythee, Charmian,
How this Herculean Roman does become
The carriage of his chafe.
Ant. I'll leave you, lady.
Cleo. Courteous lord, one word. °
Sir, you and I must part,—but that’s not it ;
Sir, you and I have lov’d,—but there’s not it ;
That you know well :—something it is, I would :—
O, my oblivion is a very Antony,
And I am all forgotten.
Ant. But that your royalty
Holds idleness your subject, I should take you
For idleness itself.
970 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
Cleo. ’Tis sweating labour
To bear such idleness so near the heart,
As Cleopatra this.”
She now changes from her raillery to the
impassioned strain of a warrior’s mistress :—
‘* But, sir, forgive me; 3
Since my becomings kill me, when they do not
Eye well to you: your honour calls you hence ;
Therefore be death to my unpitied folly,
And all the gods go with you! Upon your sword
Sit laurell’d victory! and smooth success
Be strewed before your feet.’’*
I shall not give more of the pleasant talk of
Cleopatra, to which ample, perhaps more than
ample, justice has been done by Mrs. Jameson:+
one piece, however, of practical badinage, men-
tioned by Plutarch, that engaging writer does
not notice ;—
“« Cleo. Give me mine angle,—we'll to the river ;
there,
My music playing far off, I will betray
Tawny-finn’d fishes : my bended hook shall pierce
Their slimy jaws ; and as I draw them up,
I'll think them every one an Antony,
And say, Ah, ha! youre caught.
* Acti. Sc. 3. + Charact. ii, 117.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. 271
Charmian. "Twas merry, when
You wager’d on your angling; when your diver
Did hang a salt fish on his hook which he
With fervency drew up.”*
Charmian’s allusion is to a story told by Plu-
tarch ; Antony, to conceal his bad angling, sent
down divers, who put upon his hook fish that
had been caught before. Cleopatra discovered
this trick, and sent down her divers with fish
ready salted.
All following incidents are taken from Plu-
tarch. The peace which Cesar and Antony
made up with Pompey, the insidious suggestions
of Menas to Pompey, and his reply ; the subse-
quent quarrel between Czesar and Antony, Cleo-
patra’s flight at the battle of Actium, the mission
of Thyreus and Antony’s jealousy of him,+ and
his belief in Cleopatra’s treachery, are all related
in the play as they stand in the history. The de-
fection of Enobarbus, and Antony’s generosity to
him, are in Plutarch, though related of another
person.
Octavia’s conflict of duty between her husband
and her brother,§ and her journey to meet the
* Act ii. Se. 5. t North, 780.
t He is called Domitius. See North, 776.
§ Ib, 766.
972 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
latter; and all the circumstances attending the
successes of Ceesar, and the confessions of the
Egyptian treasurer, (even Cleopatra’s speech on
that occasion,) the death of Antony and Cleopa-
tra, are equally warranted by the Grecian writer.
As to historians, by whom Plutarch may be
corrected, nearly the same remarks are appli-
cable as those which have been made on Julius
Cesar. ‘The outline of the history is probably
correct ; though there is no historian of the time
upon whom we can depend.*
Dr. Johnson says, that—
“‘ This play keeps curiosity always busy, and the
passions always interested. The continual hurry of
the action, the variety of the incidents, and the
quick succession of one personage to another, call
the mind forward without intermission, from the first
act to the last. But the power of delighting is
derived principally from the frequent changes of the
scene; for, except the feminine arts, some of which
are too low, which distinguish Cleopatra, no charac-
ter is very strongly discriminated. Upton, who did
not easily miss what he desired to find, has disco-
vered that the language of Antony is, with great
skill and learning, made pompous and superb, accord-
ing to his real practice. But I think his diction not
distinguishable from that of others ; the most tumid
* See Velleius Paterculus, lib. ii. 85-7.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. 273
speech in the play is that which Cesar makes to
Octavia.* The events, of which the principal are
described according to history, are produced without
any act of connection, or care of disposition.t
This, the last of Dr. Johnson’s criticisms which
I have to quote, is, perhaps, the least satisfac-
tory of all. In some of the worst plays (for
instance, in Henry VI.), the changes of scene
and of persons are remarkably frequent; but
this play has one merit, in which some, even of
the plays possessing the highest merit, as to
separate passages, are deficient. The fascination
of Antony by Cleopatra, and its effect upon
public events, furnish a definite and interesting
* In Act iii. Se. 6.
‘¢ Why have you stol’n upon us thus? You come
not
Like Cesar’s sister: the wife of Antony
Should have an army for an usher, and
The neighs of horse to tell of her approach,
Long ere she did appear: the trees by the way,
Should have borne men; and expectation fainted,
Longing for what it had not. Nay, the dust
Should have ascended to the roof of heav’n,
Rais’d by your populous troops: but you are come,
A market-maid to Rome; and have prevented
The ostentation of our love, which left unshewn,
Is often left unlov’d; we should have met you,
By sea and land, supplying every stage
With an augmented greeting.”
+ Bosw. 426,
N23
2974 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
plot: and Cleopatra’s part is executed with
consummate skill. The proofs of this are brought
together by Mrs. Jameson, with a degree of
judgment and truth* that makes one the more
lament the exaggerationof sentiment and strange-
ness of language in which they are displayed.
The character of Antony, I conceive, is “strongly
discriminated,” as well according to history as
to nature. Octavius and Octavia have not much
to sustain; but they sustain well what is ascribed
to them ; asdoes Enobarbus, who has the advan-
tage of being more Shakspearian than historical.
As to this play, Coleridge, whom from his
more imaginative dogmatism, I am sometimes
disposed to call the poetical Johnson, is more
just than his predecessor :—
** The art displayed in the character of Cleopatra
is profound ; in this, especially, that the sense of
criminality in her passion is lessened by our insight
* There is, perhaps, an exception in the remark that
“‘ passionate maternal tenderness was a strong and re-
deeming feature in Cleopatra’s historical character.” I
know not where this appears; it surely is not shewn by
her calling her children the sun and the moon. And I
apprehend that the Cesarion whom in her despair the
queen calls upon the heavens to smite (Bosw. 333), is not
her son by Julius, but a child yet unborn. Hazlitt
(p. 98) is much struck with the ¢magination displayed in
the passage about Cleopatra’s birth-day (Bosw. 335),
being apparently unaware that it is taken from Norih.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. 275
into its depth and energy, at the very moment that
we cannot but perceive that the passion itself springs
out of the habitual craving of a licentious nature,
and that it is supported and reinforced by voluntary
stimulus and sought-for association, instead of blos-
soming out of spontaneous emotion.’’*
I am not aware that this play has been acted
in modern times; nor do I believe it to be as
great a favourite with readers in general as the
high commendations of modern critics would
lead me to expect. I know little of the his-
trionic art, but should imagine that Cleopatra,
and Antony too, in good hands, would be ex-
ceedingly attractive on the stage; and there,
perhaps, relying on the interest of the story, and
the good acting, we should not so much miss
that force and dignity of versification which
captivate us in other plays, of which the plot
and scenes are less interesting.
* Lit. Rem., ii. 143. See also Schlegel, Cours de
Lit. Dram., iii. 86.
276
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
Berore [I proceed with the general remarks,
suggested by the careful perusal of the histori-
cal plays which this work has required of me, I
must vindicate my plan against some pretty
severe censures which have been passed upon it,
by an editor who would, perhaps, have appeared
wiser, if he had let his attractive book remain
unsullied by captious criticisms upon the works
of others.
The public has been told that my plan is
‘“‘ nearly as absurd as it would be to derogate
from the merits of Mr. Turner’s beautiful draw-
ings of coast scenery, by maintaining and provy-
ing that the draughtsman had not accurately laid
down the relative position of each bay and pro-
montory.” *
* Pictorial Shakspere, Histories, i. 21,
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. PH LF
I am willing to adopt this illustration; but
to make the case parallel it should be premised,
that those who venture along the line of our
coast had been told, in publications, English
and Foreign, of high authority, that the bays
and promontories had been laid down so accu-
rately in the drawings, as to render them safe
guides for the navigator. Hada character so
inappropriate been bestowed upon the drawings,
the denial of its truth would have been a neces-
sary task, and might have been performed by
the warmest admirer of Mr. Turner, who assur-
edly never arrogated to himself, nor does his
fame require, any merit of that sort.
Be it remembered, that I have already shown,
not only that Shakspeare’s dramas are recom-
mended for the history which they contain, but
that the most popular of our historians has
actually stated as an historical fact, an incident,
or rather a feeling of a man’s mind, for which he
had no authority but a scene in one of these
plays.*
But, further; suppose an amateur of these
** beautiful drawings,”
engaged in a coast voy-
age, being at the same time a fond observer of
nature and her works. Must this person be
* See i. 155,
2978 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
twitted with insensibility to the art of ‘Turner,
if he should use the leisure afforded by a calm
in contemplating at once the picture and the
original? What if he should point out to his
fellow-passengers here and there a liberty taken
with truth, or a striking feature in the scene
disregarded ! — Unquestionably, this employ-
ment of time would be quite harmless, and not
altogether useless, either to the lover of art, to
the observer of nature, or to him who derives
pleasure from both.
It is thus, that habitually engaged in histori-
cal researches, I have been delighted to connect
them with the plays of Shakspeare. I shall have
done no harm, if I have induced those who can
devote more time to the perusal of these splendid
dramas, to connect with it the study of the his-
tory of England. And, certainly, “ it is not to
derogate from the poet to say that he is not
an historian ;” and often, no doubt, “it may be
to elevate Shakspeare when we compare his poe-
tical truth with the truth of history.” I have
expressed ‘* no wish that he had been more exact
and literal.”* Quite the contrary ; I began with
the expression of a doubt, “ whether we might not
have reason rather to regret Shakspeare’s adhe-
* Pict. Shak. p, 22.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 279
rence to history, than his departure from it.”* If
I have shown that those who have ascribed to
the dramatist the merits of the historian have
spoken heedlessly, surely I have not thereby
depreciated his poetical merit.
I shall not now enquire whether historical
truth is itself desirable: more, or less, impor-
tance may be ascribed to history ; but surely,
if history be valuable at all, it is valuable
in proportion to its accuracy; if we desire a
pleasing narrative, we should recur to Walter
Scott rather than to Lingard: if we desire a
narrative of real transactions, we must look for
those of which the evidence is the best. This is
my apology for the minuteness of detail into
which my love of historical accuracy has occa-
sionally led me. In reference to this topic, I
beg leave to subjoin a passage with which I have
met, in an article in the Quarterly Review{ on
the “ Early History of Rome.”
‘‘ The intrinsic value of a history depends upon
the extent and accuracy of research displayed in its
compilation ; and that extent can only be marked,
that accuracy can alone be established, by copious
reference. Notes are indispensable to its existence :
they are guarantees for its trustworthiness ; they are
SE TOls: le Xlity t+ Pict. Shak., part 1, 2, 3.
t xxvii. 307.
980 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
the only measure which the reader possesses of the
credulity or discrimination of the writer. Without
them, he does not know whether he is depending on
the assertions of a Dionysius or a Tacitus; and he
may, for anything he knows to the contrary, be
reposing on the tales of the former, that confidence
which he perhaps would be willing to concede only
to the philosophic narrative of the latter. The per-
sonal friends indeed of the historian may perhaps
feel satisfied that he would advance nothing as matter
of historic truth, except what he had attentively
examined and expressly believed ; but what inference
will other persons draw from a history without note
or reference? They will assuredly never rest their
belief on its assertions; they will never receive its
unsupported details as matter of strict and conclu-
sive evidence.”
If it were necessary for me to make any further
defence against the critic who censures the plan
of my Historical Illustrations, I should find it in
the example of the critic himself, who has ap-
pended to each of his chapters, under that very
title, a specimen of that ‘ worse than useless em-
ployment of running parallels between the poet
and the chronicler.” How he has executed this
task, it is not for me to say, seeing that my
critic is also my rival. I am, however, certainly
entitled to the merit of preceding him in the
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 281
work ; whether my labours have been of any use
to him, it is not for me to decide.
The high literary character of Dr. Johnson
induced me, at: the commencement of my un-
dertaking, to reprint his criticism upon each
play, though by no means prepared to concur in
the justice of his sentences. In reviewing these,
I find scarcely one instance in which I am satis-
fied with the criticism. The commendation is,
in my opinion, generally too sparingly bestowed,
nor is the selection of praiseworthy points always
judicious. Nevertheless, the vigour of Dr. John-
son’s understanding, and, still more, the inde-
pendence of his spirit, induce me to pursue his
criticisms a little further.
Dr. Johnson’s sentences are the most just
upon Henry 1V.,* Macbeth,t and Coriolanus :t
of all which plays he speaks well; and upon
Richard ITI.,§ which he conceives to have been
over-rated. In the single instance of the three
parts of Henry VI.|| he bestows undeserved
praise ; but he does less than justice to Richard
II.,41 Henry V.,** Henry VIII.,t+, Julius
Cesar, {t and Antony and Cleopatra.§§
* i, 158. t ii. 206. Pte 229;
Brite neo: || ii. 55, s AVET
OA tt ii. 169. tt ii. 260.
§§ ii. 255. On the general effect of Johnson’s summa-
ries, see A, W. Schlegel, Lit. Dram., ii. 369.
982 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
I differ from Johnson, as to the general
character of Shakspeare’s merit in these histori-
cal plays.
‘¢ Shakspeare,” (he says) ‘‘ is, above all writers,
at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature ;
the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror
of manners and of life. His characters are not mo-
dified by the customs of particular places, unprac-
tised by the rest of the world; by the peculiarities of
studies or professions, which can operate but upon
small numbers; or by the accidents of transient
fashions or temporary opinions ; they are the general
progeny of common humanity, such as the world
will always supply, and observation will always find.
His persons act and speak by the influence of those
general passions and principles by which all minds
are agitated, and the whole system of life is conti-
nued in motion. In the writings of other poets, a
character is too often an individual; in those of
Shaskspeare, it is commonly a species. It is from
this wide extension of design that so much instruc-
tion is derived. It is this which fills the plays of
Shakspeare with practical actions and domestic wis-
dom. It was said of Euripides that every verse was
a precept, and it may be said of Shakspeare, that
from his works may be collected a system of civil
and economical prudence.”’* .
* Johnson’s preface, Bosw. i, 62.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, 283
To most of this, I apprehend, every reader of
Shakspeare will subscribe; and it can only have
been from not thinking the allusion necessary in
this particular place, that Johnson omitted to
mention those characters of Shakspeare which
are purely imaginative. Even these may be said
to be beyond or beside nature, rather than op-
posed to it.
But what follows requires, at least, much
qualification.
** Yet his real power is not shewn in the splen-
dour of particular passages, but by the progress of
his fable and the tenor of his dialogue; and he that
tries to recommend him by select quotations, will
succeed like the pedant in Hierocles, who, when he
offered his house for sale, carried a brick in his
pocket as a specimen.”*
Now, it appears to me, that in many of the
plays, and perhaps in most of the historical
plays, it is in separate passages that the supe-
riority consists. Such, indeed, is necessarily the
case, where the play describes not one great
action, but a series of events. And if this be
admitted, where our author drew from an old
Chronicle, it is not less true, or less natural,
* Ibid. 62.
984 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
when he adopted an inferior play. I would add,
that it is occasional speeches, rather than in the
dramatic history of particular characters, that
the instruction of which the critic justly speaks,
is to be found.
Indeed, Dr. Johnson himself elsewhere ap-
pears to be of this opinion.
“His first defect is that to which may be imputed
most of the evil in books or in men. He sacrifices
virtue to convenience, and is so much more careful
to please than to instruct, that he seems to write
without any moral purpose. From his writings, in-
deed, a system of social duty may be selected, for he
that thinks reasonably must think morally ; but his
precepts and axioms drop casually from him, he
makes no just distribution of good or evil, nor is
always careful to show in the virtuous a disapproba-
tion of the wicked; he carries his persons indiffe-
rently through right or wrong, and at the close dis-
misses them without further care, and leaves their
example to operate by chance. . . . The plots
are often so loosely formed, that a very slight consi-
deration may improve them, and so carelessly pur-
sued that he seems not always fully to comprehend
his own design. He omits opportunities of instruct-
ing or delighting, which the train of his story seems
to force upon him, and apparently rejects those exhi-
bh %. ;
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 285
bitions which would be more affecting, for the sake
of those which are more easy.”’*
I had forgotten this passage, when I made
a remark, —for which, if these commentaries
should be the subject of criticism, I shall pro-
bably be censured,—on the absence of design in
Shakspeare’s historical characters.
I shall listen, I trust, with candour and good
temper, to any man who will endeavour to
convince me that I am wreng in this point: I
confess that my opinion is founded upon obser-
vation, not only of Shakspeare and his plays,
but upon what generally passes in the world. I
am a great disbeliever in complicated plots and
deep-laid intrigues. I suspect that in nine cases
out of ten in which elaborate design is imputed
to what a man says or does, the imputation is
false or exaggerated. ‘* Many mischiefs (as
Johnson himself says,) and many benefits, are
done and hindered without design.” +
This frame of mind may perhaps have dis-
posed me more readily to receive the impression
which I have avowed. Yet, in looking back to
the prominent characters in the fourteen plays
which I have reviewed, I am satisfied that, as
applied to the historical dramas, it is just.
* Bosw. 72. 5 rad Pa A he 4a t Bosw. 65.
986 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
I believe Shakspeare to have been a very idle
man. His observation was extensive and accu-
rate, his imagination unbounded, his invention
fertile, his understanding vigorous, and, withal,
the whole frame of his mind poetical ; from all
these he derived masterly powers of delineation
and creation. But he was often indolent in the
use of these powers, and if the “ present popu-
larity and present profit”* which he sought, could
be attained by the conversion of the works of
others, he was satisfied.
Nullum tetigit quod non ornavit. Not only
could he improve what was good before, but he
could raise excellence out of baseness, and turn
an utterly worthless piece into a splendid drama.
He took little pains except with the lan-
guage and versification. In amplifying a speech,
he did not often introduce new ideas, but he en-
larged, and clothed in more correct language
and more stately verse, those which he found
prepared for him. Whether he found them in a
play or in a chronicle, he seldom reconstructed
the plot or the characters; and if either the un-
skilfulness of former writers, the mistakes of his-
torians or translators, or the real facts of history,
had occasioned a want of that consistency, defi-
* Johnson, in Bosw. 90.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, 287
nitiveness, and unity, which are as desirable for
moral as for dramatic effect, Shakspeare cared
not to supply the deficiency.
For his historical dramas, he had always a
model, copious in detail, either in a chronicle,
an older play, or both. To these, sometimes
very unworthy sources, he recurred for scenes
as well as plots; and it is, therefore, that in
these plays there is less of Shakspeare’s own
than in many of the plays of which the borrowed
outline was less complete. It will be found that
where a mere hint was all that his prototype
supplied, he was most successful. I have men-
tioned one of these instances, —the speech of
Antony over Ceesar’s body, and I am glad to
find, in a work which will live so long as the
English language endures, a confirmation of my
opinion of that masterly and effective oration.
©, . . Nor isthere perhaps in the whole range
of ancient and modern eloquence, a speech more
fully realizing the perfection that orators have striven
to attain.” *
But it is in this same play, that that memo-
rable instance of inattention occurs, through
* Hallam’s Introduction to the Literature of the
15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, iii. 571.
988 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
which Brutus, from Shakspeare’s use of a mis-
translation, is made to contradict himself.*
Notwithstanding the laudatory tone in which
Johnson, in his ‘‘ celebrated preface,” speaks of
Shakspeare in the general, and the undoubted
correctness of many of his remarks, he exhibits
his faults in a tone so censorious and almost
contemptuous, and neglects so many of his ex-
cellences, as hardly to be classed properly among
the admirers of the great dramatist.
Yet, though I cannot adopt him as my mas-
ter in criticism upon Shakspeare, I own that, if
I turn from the austere Johnson to the enthu-
siastic Coleridge, I am equally at a loss! If the
one is too cold, the other is too hot. Coleridge
is one of those who acknowledging, as Christians
or philosophers, the imperfection of every thing
human, yet conceive that it pleased Providence
to make one exception ; and to favour the reign
of Elizabeth, the kingdom of England, the
county of Warwick, the town of Stratford-
upon-Avon, and the one man Shakspeare born
there, with an exemption from this otherwise
universal rule. |
I write this sentence in fear and trembling,
because I know that Coleridge is one of a nume-
* See p. 255.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 289
rous class; many persons, very many, there are,
who affect the enthusiasm which Coleridge really
felt; and who imagine, as it would seem, that
by ascribing to Shakspeare a genius, such as no
man has possessed, they will themselves obtain
credit for a portion of it.’
Hallam says truly,* that we contemplate
Shakspeare with Idolatry; the term is fully
justified by Coleridge’s professed belief that
‘* Shakspeare’s genius was super-human,”+-—
language, I presume to say, equally absurd and
blasphemous.
I have already, in speaking of Wolsey,t ex-
pressed my suspicion that Shakspeare did not
take the trouble to choose, in his own mind, be-
tween the different characters which are assigned
to one man; he was content that the dramatic
character should remain, as historical characters
necessarily must, a matter of doubt and ques-
tion.
If any critic should suggest, that herein Shak-
speare evinced his knowledge of mankind, for in
truth there is not in human minds that absorb-
ing passion and intensity of motive which are
thought essential to dramatic excellence, I shall
assuredly not quarrel with the criticism. If it
* iii. 576. + ii. 142. pio Fy WA
VOL. II. oO
990 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
were shown to be by design and not through
carelessness, from observation and not from idle-
ness, that our poet sometimes left his heroes with
characters that puzzle us, I should readily ac-
quiesce in a suggestion so consistent with a know-
ledge of the world as it is. And I gladly quote
from Coleride himself some remarks to this
effect :-—
‘The characters of the dramatis persone, like
those in real life, are to be inferred by the reader—.
they are not told to him. And it is well worth
remarking, that Shakspeare’s characters, like those
of real life, are very commonly misunderstood, and
almost understood by different persons in different
ways. The causes are the same in either case. If
you take only what the friends of the character say,
you may be deceived, and still more so, if that
which his enemies say ; nay, even the character him-
self sees himself through the medium of his charac-
ter, and not exactly as he is. Take all together,
not omitting a shrewd hint from the clown
or the fool, and perhaps your impression may
be right, and you may know whether you have, in
fact, discovered the poet’s own idea, by all the
speeches receiving a light from it, and attesting its
reality by reflecting it. Lastly, in Shakspeare the
heterogeneous is united as in nature.”*
There is still, I admit, a material difference
* Lit, Rem. ii. 82.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, 291
between Coleridge and me; I doubt whether
this poet’s own idea existed. I suspect that
Shakspeare made the persons of this drama act
heterogeneously, as he saw his neighbours act,
and that he did not, in the one case more than in
the other, draw the whole character in his mind.
Coleridge imputes, in one instance, incon-
sistency to Shakspeare’s Brutus.* In that in-
stance I think Coleridge wrong, but his enthu-
siasm would not permit him to seek the true
solution of his difficulty.
On the female characters, Coleridge remarks :
** In all the Shaksperian women there is essen-
tially the same foundation and principle ; the distinct
individuality and variety are merely the result of the
modification of circumstances, whether in Miranda,
the maiden; in Imogen, the wife; or, in Catherine,
the queen.’’t .
What is this but to affirm, that the female
sex has a character of its own, which appears in
every form and condition of woman ?
Male or female, Shakspeare’s characters are
natural ; and exhibit a very accurate and philo-
sophical knowledge of the human mind. I am
satisfied that he would have held those in con-
tempt who ascribe to him the exclusive power
of discriminating and painting human caprices.
* See p. 262. + Lit. Rem. 97.
02
292 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
In this power, or rather in the opportunity of
using it, the novelist has a great advantage over
the dramatist, and since persons of great know-
ledge of the world have applied their minds to
the invention of stories in which every sort of
character is put into every sort of position,
many more complete delineations have been pro-
duced. The dramatist has not time or space
for the multifarious and minute illustrations of
character which the novelist can furnish, and of
which our own day and country have afforded
numerous examples; it is, indeed, only because
such specimens are no longer rare that we
hesitate to place the characters of Austin and
Scott by the side of those of Shakspeare, Cer-
vantes, and Le Sage. I mention here the Spa-
nish and the French novelists, because to them
also, and from a similar cause, we habitually
ascribe an undeserved superiority over the mas-
terly productions of our own day.
Be it noted, that I am speaking of the deline-
ation and illustration of character, and of that
only. I pretend not to name a modern author,
in whom a just and striking portraiture of cha-
racter is connected with so much of splendid
versification, so much of lofty and affecting
poetry, by turns didactic, descriptive, affecting,
tremendous, so many acute and ingenious reflec-
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 293
tions and precepts, and so much, withal, of
dramatic excellence, as in Shakspeare. But I
still claim for the novelists a superiority, not
only in the interest of the story, but in the accu-
rate, varied, contrasted, and curiously-shaded
discrimination of human character. And this
not only in the characters called purely natural,
in which we recognize what we see daily, but in
those upon which the art of the poet has been
exercised ; not so as to make them altogether
unnatural, or beyond that which we can easily
conceive, but characters that tremble between
' truth and fiction, and participate in the beauties
of both.
It is curious to observe the different selection
of topics for praise, made by those who speak of
Shakspeare’s characters. Johnson, we have seen,*
says that each character is a species. Pope says,
that ‘ every single character is as much an indi-
vidual as those in life itself.” There is no real
inconsistency between the two critics. Johnson
means that each character is justified by a nume-
rous class in real life; Pope, that each dramatic
character may clearly be distinguished from the
others.
* P, 282.
+ Bosw., i. 4. See Schlegel, Lit. Dram., ii. 376. He
is not very clear.
994 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
I am bound to own, that a different estimate
from mine, of the modern novelists, has been
formed by him among critics upon whose judg-
ment—if I may venture to say so of a modern
—I have the greatest reliance :-—
“The name of Shakspeare'is the greatest in our
literature—it is the greatest in all literature. No
man ever came near to him in the creative powers of
the mind; no man had ever such strength, at once,
and such variety of imagination. Coleridge has most
felicitously applied to him a Greek epithet, given
before to I know not whom, certainly none sa
deserving of it, ¢evegsovevs, the thousand-souled Shak-
speare.* The number of characters in his plays is
astonishingly great, without reckoning those who,
although transient, have often their individuality, all
distinct—all types of human life in well-defined dif-
ferences. Yet he never takes an abstract quality to
embody it, scarcely, perhaps, a definite condition of
manners, as Jonson does ; nor did he draw much, as
I conceive, from living models ; there is no manifest
appearance of personal caricature in his comedies,
though in some slight traits of character this may
not improbably have been the case.”
‘
Observing, that if he had constructed (as is
practised in modern times) particular parts for
particular performers,
* Table Talk, ii. 301.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, 295
“« he never would have poured forth, with such inex-
haustible prodigality, the vast diversity of characters
that we find in some of his plays. This it is in
which he leaves far behind, not the dramatists alone,
but all writers of fiction. Compare with him Homer,
the tragedians of Greece, the poets of Italy, Plautus,
Cervantes, Moliére, Addison, Le Sage, Fielding,
Richardson, Scott, the romances of the elder or later
schools. One man has far more than surpassed them
all. Others may have been as sublime—others may
have been more pathetic—others may have excelled
him in grace and purity of language, and have shun-
ned some of its faults ; but the philosophy of Shak-
speare—this intimate searching-out of the human
heart, whether in the gnomic form of sentence, or
in the dramatic exhibition of character, is a gift
peculiarly his own. It is, if not entirely wanting,
very little manifested, in comparison with him, by
the English dramatists of his own and the subsequent
period, whom we are about to approach.*
* Hallam, iii. 574.—I1 will put what Hallam says per
contva inanote. ‘ The ¢dolatry of Shakspeare has been
carried so far of late years, that Drake, and perhaps
greater authorities, have been unwilling to acknowledge
any faults in his plays. This, however, is an extravagance
rather derogatory to the critic than honourable to the
poet. Besides the blemishes of construction in some of
his plots, which are pardonable, but still blemishes, there
are too many in his style. His conceits and quibbles
2996 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
The mention of Scott, and the later romances,
compels me to confess that Hallam’s decision is
against me; yet his concluding passage shows,
and indeed many of his expressions show, that
he had dramatists and poets in his mind, rather
than the writers of tales in prose.
Of Shakspeare we must assuredly say, in his
own words—
‘* Take him for all in all,
We ne’er shall look upon his like again.”
I do not pretend to set up against him any one
of the writers whom Hallam has enumerated ;
but for the particular excellence of which we
now speak, I do claim equal credit for many of
them, and for many of the writers of the nine-
teenth century.
often spoil the effect of his scenes, and take off from the
passion he would excite.”
eres ‘“‘ It is certain, that throughout the
seventeenth century, and even in the writings of Addison
and his contemporaries, we seldom or never meet with
that complete recognition of his supremacy, that unhesi-
tating preference of him to all the world, which has
become the guilt of the last and the present century.
And itis remarkable, that this apotheosis, so to speak of
Shakspeare, was originally the work of what.has been
styled a frigid and tasteless generation—the age of
George II.”’—iii. 576. Yet Dryden is very strong in
his commendation.— Works, xv. 350,
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 297
I now insert what Hallam says of the histori-
cal plays.
“ Many attempts had been made to dramatize the
English Chronicles, but, with the single exception of
Marlowe’s Edward II., so unsuccessfully, that Shak-
speare may be considered as almost an original occu-
pant of the field. He followed historical truth with
considerable exactness; and in some of his plays, as
in that of Richard II., and generally in Richard III.
and Henry VIIJ., admitted no imaginary personages,
nor any scenes of amusement. The historical plays
have had a considerable effect upon Shakspeare’s
popularity. They have identified him with English
feelings in English hearts, and are very frequently read
more in childhood, and consequently better remem-
bered than some of his superior dramas. And these
dramatic chronicles borrowed surprising liveliness
and probability from the national character and form
of government. A prince, and a courtier, and a slave,
are the stuff upon which an historical dramatist
would have to work in some countries; out every
class of freemen in the just subordination, without
which neither human society, nor the stage, which
should be its mirror, can be more than a chaos cf
huddled units, lay open to the selection of Shak-
speare. What he invented is as truly English, as
truly historical, in the large sense of moral history,
as what he read.”
This appears to me somewhat fanciful; un-
03
998 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
questionably, the periods of English ‘history
which preceded Shakspeare’s, and those indeed
which he dramatized, are memorable for the
struggles between different classes of freemen ;
Hallam himself has made this struggle familiar
to us all; but Shakspeare has not told of it, nor,
indeed, is it a very poetical subject.
I have had occasion to speak in high praise of
Shakspeare’s rhythm; which appears to me ge-
nerally to unite strength and beauty so as to
produce an effect highly pleasing and impressive.
The place that William Gifford filled in the his-
tory of criticism induces me,—who nevertheless
always thought him an unfair and unpleasing
critic,—to mention that he, I believe he only,
denies that rhythmical modulation is among
Shakspeare’s excellences, and places Massinger
before him, in this branch of art;* and he quotes,
as “rhythmical and melodious almost beyond
example,” a speecht which to me appears, in
* Gifford’s Massinger, i. Ixxix.
+ Luke, “’Twas no fantastie object, but a truth,
A real truth; nor dream; I did not slumber,
And could wake ever with a boding eye
To gaze upon’t! It did endure the touch ;
I saw and felt it! yet what I beheld
And handled oft, did so transcend belief,
(My wonder and astonishment pass’d o’er)
I faintly could give credit to my senses.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 299
that respect, as inferior to Shakspeare as 7'he
City Madam is, in all respects, to The Tempest.
Gifford has done injustice to Massinger as well
as to Shakspeare, for his selection from the for-
mer is by no means well chosen. Hallam praises
*¢ the harmonious swell of numbers,”* which is
assuredly to be found in many passages of Mas-
singer, but not in Gifford’s example. Still, I
know net how much of the preference may be
traceable to pleasure derived in boyhood ; but,
to my ear, neither Massinger nor any other
writer, sounds so gracefully as Shakspeare, in so
many varied styles. ‘‘'To him,” says Johnson, t
That dumb magician (taking out a key), that without
a charm,
Dids’t make my entrance easy to possess
W hat wise men wish, and toil for! Hermes’ molly,
Sibylla’s golden bough, the great elixir
Imagin’d only by the alchemist,
Compared with these are shadows, thou the substance,
And guardian of felicity! No marvel,
My brother made his place of rest thy bosom,
That being the keeper of his heart, a mistress
To be hugged ever! In by-corners of
This sacred room, silver in bags, heap’d up,
Like billets saw’d and ready for the fire,
Unworthy to hold fellowship with bright gold
That flow’d about the room conceal’d itself.”
And more of the same, not better. — City Madam,
Act iii. Se. 3.—Works iv. 66.
* iii, 612, + Bosv, 89.
300 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
‘‘ we must ascribe the praise, unless Spenser
may divide it with him, of having first disco-
vered to how much smoothness and harmony the
English language could be softened.” But the
vigour and dignity of which our mother-tongue
is unquestionably susceptible, are equally well
illustrated by Shakspeare. I cannot imagine
how Johnson could say that ‘his declamations
or set speeches are commonly cold and weak,* for
his power,” he adds, ‘* was the power of nature ;”
I know not precisely how a set speech is defined,
or where the power of nature is supposed to end:
But I have had the pleasure of giving harangues
from Shakspeare, both original and adopted, as
warm and as forcible as language can bef I
think that I have heard it said, that Shakspeare
did not shine in narration. I know not where
to find any thing finer than the entry of Richard
and Bolingbroke into London ;{ and a less ela-
borate passage, describing Wolsey’s death,§
sounds to my ear as agreeably as the funeral
scene in the Andria. And so of more familiar
life,—the conversation at the smith’s forge about
Arthur's death :||—I could easily and gladly fill
* Ky Oe
+ With others, see the speeches of Queen Catherine
and Mark Antony, ii. 149 and 241.
TiO). § ii. 162. || i. 23,
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 301
a volume with instances of declamation, narra-
tion, and description, equally excellent for the
sentiment and the rhythm.
But I am soaring into regions to which I
claim no peculiar right, and I must have done.
My main purpose has been, to tell in cold narra-
tion the story which Shakspeare has sung poeti-
cally ; but it is sadly unfair to impute to me the
opinion, that Shakspeare ought to have sacrificed
poetry to truth. I was, almost in childhood, bred
up upon Shakspeare and the history of Eng-
land, and I would not now that our youth
should, for any thing that I write, love Shak-
speare the less, but that they should study
history the more.
302
ADDITIONAL NOTICES OF THE
SEVERAL PLAYS.
Kine Joun.—Campbell has observed upon
the omission of “the great charter of our liber-
ties,’’ in a way to entitle him to share with me
the sneer of the Pictorial Editor.*
“ It is remarkable that the poet of England, and
the most eloquent poet who ever summed up the vir-
tues of Brutus, should have dramatized the reign of
King John, without the most distant allusion to
Magna Charta. Was he afraid of offending Elizabeth ?
I think not ; for he brought out Julius Cesar in the
reign of King James, whose petty mind was more
afraid of popular principles than that of Elizabeth.”
I suspect that Elizabeth was at least as likely
as James to visit with severity the circulation
©. al oD,
ADDITIONAL NOTICES, 303
of unpalatable principles. But there is nothing
offensive in this way in Julius Caesar. However,
Shakspeare was probably guided by the old
play ; not, as the Pictorial Editor fancifully
suggests, because the people were familiar with
the story as it is told there, but because it was
convenient to him to adopt it.
Mr. Campbell has committed another of the
sins for which I am rebuked by the Pictorial :
he has suggested a topic omitted by Shakspeare.
« T regret further that his mighty genius did not
turn to poetical account another event in King John’s
reign, still more adapted to poetry, namely, the su-
perstitious desolation of the English mind which
immediately followed the papal excommunication
that was issued from Rome against England and her
king. The shutting up the churches, the nation’s
sudden deprivation of all the exterior exercises of its
religion, the altars despoiled of their ornaments, the
cessation of sabbath bells, and the celebration of
mass with doors shut against the laity, all these cir-
cumstances have been wrought up by Hume* into an
historic picture that is worthy of Livy; and what
would they not have been as a poetical picture in the
hands of Shakspeare ?”
Shakspeare was undoubtedly sensible of the
* ii. 62, from the Dunstable Chronicle, i, 51,
304 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.,
associations connected with the sound of church
bells ;
“« If ever you have look’d on better days,
If ever been where bells have knell’d to church.”*—
But I doubt whether he was familiar with the
effects of an interdict; and he found not even
the outline of Hume’s picture in Holinshed ; in-
deed, Hume himself gives a rather poetical ver-
sion of the chronicle to which he refers.
Ricuarp I].—Though not desirous of dwel-
ling upon controversy, I must mention, that.
under this reign, my critic gives, in one instance,
Holinshed and Shakspeare in parallel columns.+
The same editor suggests (p. 101) that Shak-
speare might have dramatized the insurrection of
Wat Tyler. It has been seen{ that our poet
transferred parts of this story to that of Jack
Cade, which had really a different character.
Henry IV.—Of the passage quoted in vol. 1.
* As you Like It, Actii, Sc.7. Bosw., vi. 407.
+ P.156. The editor has remarked (p.127) on an
observation of mine (i. 58), that a more minute know-
ledge of history would, in a particular case, have been
useful to Shakspeare. I should have said, more minute
attention to history; for it is true that Holinshed, whom
the poet consulted, tells the story to which I refer.
f i. 303.
ADDITIONAL NOTICES, 305
p: 109, descriptive of Prince Henry and _ his
followers, Burke says,*—
“There are many descriptions in the poets and
orators, which owe their sublimity to a richness and
profusion of images, in which the mind is so dazzled
as to make it impossible to attend to that exact co-
herence and agreement of the allusion, which we
should require on every other occasion. Ido not now
remember a more striking example of this than the
description which is given of the king’s army in the
play of Henry IV.—*‘ All furnished, all in arms,” &c.
Gifford+ quotes from Worcester’s speech in
the first part,—
« T'll read you matter deep and dangerous,
As full of peril and adventurous spirit,
As to o’erwalk a current, roaring loud,
On the uncertain footing of a spear.” {
He says that Massinger borrowed “a noble
figure” from this passage, when he wrote,—
‘** What a bridge
Of glass I walk upon, over a river
Of certain ruin, mine own weighty fears
Cracking what should support me.’’§
* Works, i. 188. + Mass., i. p, exxxiil.
t Acti. Sc.3. Bosw. xvi, 222.
§ Bondman, Activ. Se.3, Giff., 11.91.
306 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
And Massinger, he says, “ has improyed upon
his original.”
I see neither the imitation nor the improye-
ment; I like Shakspeare’s simple figure better
than the other, which partakes of the conceit.
Henry V.—Mr. Collier says,* “ the History
of Sir John Oldcastle,’—an old play by four
authors,—furnished Shakspeare with hints for
the scene in which the king discloses his know-
ledge of the conspiracy of Lord Scope and the
others.
Henry VI.—Hallam says—
‘‘ In default of a more probable claimant, I have
sometimes been inclined to assign the first part of
Henry VI: to Greene. ........:. si te ee
however, of Henry VI. is, in some passages, not un-
worthy of Shakspeare’s earlier days, nor, in my
judgment, unlike his style; nor, in fact, do I know
any one of his contemporaries who could have writ-
ten the scene in the Temple Garden.t The light
touches of his pencil have ever been still more inimi-
tative, if possible, than its more elaborate strokes.” t
In the former volume, I declined giving an
opinion upon the authorship of the first part of
* Poetical Decameron, i. 52.
t See i. 243. tT ia
ADDITIONAL NOTICES, 307
Henry VI. I now confess myself inclined to
agree with Hallam, that this scene in the garden
has deep marks of Shakspeare’s hand.
The same author observes,* that ‘ some of
the passages most popular in the second and third
parts, such as the death of Cardinal Beaufort,t
and the last speech of the Duke of York, are not
by his hand.”
It appears to me that the death-bed scene in
Shakspeare’s play is so materially altered from
that in ‘*‘ The Contention,’{ as to constitute a
new work of which Shakspeare is to have the
credit, as fully as if he had taken it from a
prose chronicle.
According to the commentators, Shakspeare
scarcely altered the last speech of York from the
original.§ I humbly suggest, that it is not
worth contending for.
Ricuarp I]I.—Hallam has no remark upon
this play. Coleridge says, ‘ pride of intellect
is the characteristic of Richard. Shakspeare
here, as in all his great parts, developes, in a
tone of sublime morality, the dreadful conse-
quences of placing the moral in subordination
* i. 377. t See i. 289,
+ See Bosw. xviii. 276.
§ Bosw. iii. 397, and see ante p. 11.
308 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
to the intellectual being.” This is not a bad spe-
cimen of Coleridge’s elaborate fancifulness. Ri-
chard is an ambitious man, who disregards mora-
lity in the pursuit of his end, and is finally over-
come by a combination which, for dramatic effect,
is represented as a righteous resistance offered to
tyranny and usurpation.
Henry VIII.—Campbell takes a remarkable
view of Shakspeare’s motive, in his management
of the character and conduct of this king. He
assumes that Shakspeare did not believe Henry
to be impelled by conscientious scruples to
divorce Catherine; but observes that he never-
theless
‘“‘ Contrives, though at some sacrifice of historical
truth, to raise the matron Catherine to our highest
admiration, whilst, at the same time, he keeps us in
love with Anne Boleyn, and on tolerable terms with
Henry VIII. But who does not see (he adds), under
all this wise management, the drift of his design,
namely, to compliment Elizabeth as a virgin queen,
to interest us in the memory of her mother, Anne
Boleyn, and to impress us with a belief of her inno-
cence, though she suffered as an alleged traitress to
the bed of Henry. The private. death of Catherine
of Arragon might have been still remembered by
many living persons, but the death of Anne Boleyn
ADDITIONAL NOTICES, 309
was still more fresh in public recollection, and a wiser
expedient could not have been devised, for assert-
ing the innocence of Elizabeth’s mother, than by por-
traying Henry’s injustice towards Queen Catherine.
For we are obliged to infer, that if the tyrant could
thus misuse the noble Catherine, the purest inno-
cence in her lovely successor could be no shield
against his cruelty.”’*
I do not believe in this elaborate manage-
ment: I have already said that Shakspeare
took pretty freely from the chronicle those pas-
sages of Henry’s life which he introduced into
his play. But I see no reason to believe that
Elizabeth was more anxious about the repu-
tation of her mother, than about the character
of her father: or that she would willingly
consent that Henry should be pronounced un-
just, in order that Anne might be deemed inno-
cent. Her anxiety, if she had any as to this
matter probably was, that the divorce and sub-
sequent marriage should be held good ; and this
is sufficiently established in the play.
Macsetu.—Of this play Hallam says—
*‘The majority of readers, I believe, assign to
Macbeth, which seems to have been written about
1606, the pre-eminence among the works of Shak-
* Camp. lii. » wie aeort We dh
310 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
speare; many, however, would rather name Othello,
one of his latest, which is referred to 1611; anda
few might prefer Lear to either. The great Epic
drama, as the first may be called, deserves, in my
own judgment, the post it has attained as being, in
the language of Drake, ‘the greatest effort of our
author’s genius, the most sublime and impressive
drama which the world has ever beheld.’ ’’*
Cortotanus. — After mentioning that in
others of his Roman plays Shakspeare copies
Plutarch too closely, Hallam says—
‘« This fault is by no means discerned in the third
Roman tragedy of Shakspeare, Coriolanus. He
luckily found an intrinsic historical remedy which he
could not have destroyed, and which his magnificent
delineation of the chief personage has thoroughly
maintained. Coriolanus himself has the grandeur of
sculpture; his proportions are colossal, nor would
less than this transcendant superiority by which he
towers over his fellow citizens, warrant, or seem for
the moment to warrant, his haughtiness and their
pusillanimity. The surprising judgment of Shak-
peare is visible in this. A dramatist of the second
class, a Corneille, a Schiller, or an Alperi, would not
have lost the occasion of representing the plebeian
form of courage and patriotism. A tribune would
have been made to utter noble speeches, and some
* Hallam iii. 570.
ADDITIONAL NOTICES. 311
critics would have extolled the balance and contract
of the antagonist principles. And this might have
degenerated into the general laws of ethics and po-
litics which philosophical tragedians love to pour
forth. But Shakspeare instinctively perceived, that
to render the arrogance of Coriolanus endurable to
the spectator, or dramatically probable, he must de-
base the plebeians toa contemptable populace. The
sacrifice of historic truth is often necessary to the
truth of poetry. The citizens of early Rome, “‘ rus-
ticorum, mascula, militum, prolos,” are indeed calum-
niated in his scenes, and might almost pass for bur-
gessess of Stratford ; but the unity of emotion is not
dissipated by contradictory energies.’’*
I cannot agree with Hallam. Shakspeare
could not have made his plebeians utter noble
sentiments without inconsistency with his own
views. He regarded all commons as “ rude
unpolished hinds.”
JuLivus Casar.—‘‘ In Julius Cesar the plot wants
even that historical unity which the romantic drama
requires ; the third and fourth Act are ill connected ;
it is deficient in female characters, and in that com-
bination which is generally apparent amidst all the
intricacies of his fable. But it abounds in fine scenes
and fine passages; the spirit of Plutarch’s Brutus
* i, 572.
312 COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE.
“is well seized ; the characters have that individuality
which Shakspeare seldom misses.’’*
I acknowledge carelessness in omitting to no-
tice the address of Marcellus, the tribune to the
people :—
‘“* Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he
home?
What tributaries follow him to Rome,
To grace in captive bonds his chariot wheels ?
You blocks! you stones! you worse than senseless
things !
Oh, you hard hearts! you cruel men of Rome,
Knew ye not Pompey? Many a time and oft
Have you climb’d up to walls and battlements,
To towers, and windows, yea, to chimney tops,
Your infants in your arms, and there have sat
The live-long day, with patient expectation,
To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome ;
And when you saw his chariot but appear,
Have you not made an universal shout,
That Tiber trembled underneath his banks,
To hear the replication of your sounds,
Made in her concave shores ?
And do you now put on your best attire ?
And do you now cull out a holiday?
And do you now strew flowers in his way,
That comes in triumph over Pompey’s blood ?
Begone:;
"PR. Efile .
ADDITIONAL NOTICES. 313
Run to your houses, fall upon your knees,
Pray to the gods to intermit the plague
That needs must light on this ingratitude.”
Of these lines, Campbell says, that “ they are
among the most magnificent in the English lan-
guage,’ and so they strike me. With slight excep-
tions, the ideas are simple and homely ; but the
words ¢eil, like one of the Duke of Wellington’s
speeches, where florid ornament might fail.
Antony anp Cieopatra.—‘“ This play,’ says
Hallam, ‘‘ does not furnish perhaps, so many striking
beauties as the last, but is at least equally redolent of
the genius of Shakspeare. Antony, indeed, was given
him by history, and he has but embodied in his own
vivid colours the irregular mind of the triumvir—am-
bitious and daring against all enemies but himself. In
Cleopatra he had less to guide him. She is another
incarnation of the same passions, more lawless and
insensible to reason and honour, as they are found in
women. This character being not one that can please,
its strong and spirited delineation has not been sufh-
ciently observed. It has, indeed, only a political
originality, the type was in the courtezan of common
life, but the resemblance is that of Michael Angelo’s
sybils to a muscular woman. In this tragedy, like
Julius Cesar, as has been justly observed by Schlegel,
the events that do not pass on the stage are scarcely
made clear enough to one who is not previously
VOL. II. P
314. COMMENTARIES ON SHAKSPEARE,
acquainted with history, and some of the persons
appear and vanish again without sufficient reason.
He has, in fact, copied Plutarch too exactly.”*
Of the three Roman plays this judicious critic
says :— |
‘* Coriolanus is less rich in poetical style than the
other two, but the comic parts are full of humour.
In these three tragedies it is manifest that Roman
character, and still more, Roman manners, are not
exhibited with the precision of a scholar; yet there is
something that distinguishes them from the rest,
something of a grandiosity in the sentiments and
language which shews that Shakspeare had not read
the history without entering into its spirit.” >
* ili. 571.—See Campbell, p. 1xi.
+ P. 573.
INDEX.
ABERGAVENNY, Ear! of, i. 77.
George Neville, third lord, ii, 122.
Actium, battle of, ii. 271.
Agincourt, battle of, i. 189-205.
Albany, John Stewart, Duke of, ii. 124.
Alencon, Duke of, i. 205.
Amyot, Thomas, i. 35; on the death of Richard II., 72.
Angers, town of, i. 6.
Anglia Sacra, quoted, i. 131, 134.
Angus, Scottish noble, ii. 200, 201.
Anjou and Maine, i. 3, 260, 287.
Anne, daughter of Warwick, wife of Prince Edward, and of
Richard III., betrothed to Edward, ii. 27; her marriage,
30, 31; with Richard, 65; her disguise, 66; her wooing,
68; her death, 100; her dress, 102; her character, 117.
Anne Boleyn, first mentioned, ii. 136,140: how far the
cause of the divorce, 144-8, 1533; scene with the old lady,
148; her marriage, 156, 158; Gardiner’s hostility, 165:
her character, 308, 309.
Antony and Cleopatra, the play, ii. 264, 281.
, Mark, ii. 231, 232, 236, 297, 247, 268, 271; his
address to Cesar’s corpse, 239; his speech over it, 241,
258, 287; over Brutus, 255; captivated by Cleopatra, 264,
268; jealous of her, 271; observes on his wife, 267; his
character, 272, 274.
Appeal of treason, i. 39.
pP2
316 INDEX.
Appian, ii. 256.
Archeologia, quoted, i. 46, 47, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 69.
Archers, English, at Homildon, i. 76.
Armagnac, Earl of, i. 252, 263.
Armorial bearings worn at Agincourt, i. 198.
Armourer, the, and his man Peter, i. 273.
Arnold’s History of Rome, quoted, ii. 212, 226,
Arthur of Bretagne, Prince, the King of France claims the
crown for him, i. 2; knighted, 5; why so named, 2b. ;
created Earl of Richmond, 11; his disposition, 15; scene
with Hubert, 16; death, 20; discontents thereat, 23.
Arundel, Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl of, i. 38.
Ashley, Lady, ii. 63.
Attainder of the Yorkists, i. 307; ii. 5, 12; of Clarence,
73,90; of Richard III., 96.
Audley, James Touchet, fifth lord, ii. 4.
Aumerle, Edward Plantagenet, Duke of.—See York.
Austria, Archduke of, i. 3.
Bacon, Lord, i. 35.
Bagot, Sir John, i. 44, 47, 61.
Banquo, ii. 178, 193, 195.
Barante, quoted, i. 222.
Bardolph, Lord, i. 120, 123, 196.
Falstaff’s companion, i. 84, 197, 184.
Barons of England, their revolt against John, i. 27
Basset, 1. 249.
Bayonne, Bishop of, ii. 144.
Beaufort, Cardinal, i. 213; bickerings with Gloucester, 217,
224, 237, 240; anegociator, 254; his part in the king’s
marriage, 256, 266, 268 ; described, 269 ; concerned against
Elinor, 270, 272, 277, 279, 280; his death, 288 ; character,
313.
family, ii. 115.
Beaumont, John, first viscount, i. 6.
Bedford, John Duke of, (see Prince John of Lancaster, ) i.
174, 194, 196, 197, 213, 222, 223, 224, 237; his death,
227,
INDEX, 317
Benevolences, i. 49.
Berkeley Castle, i. 51.
Birnam Wood, ii. 203.
Blanche of Castile, i. 9, 10.
Blore Heath, battle of, ii. 4.
Blount, Sir Charles, ii.111.
Blunt, Sir Walter, i. 110, 117.
Boethius, ii. 177, 178, 179.
Bolingbroke, afterwards Henry IV., accuses Mowbray, i. 36 ;
his part in Radcot-bridge, 39; pardoned, 40; banished,
41; lands again, 48, 51, 68; prevented from marrying,
65; his character, 73; accused of murdering Richard, 131.
— See Henry IV.
Bonville, heiress of, ii. 27, 28.
Boswell, James, jun. ii, 243, 261,
Bosworth Field, ii. 111,
Bourchier, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, ii. 70.
Bourbon, Duke of, i. 185.
Bourdeaux, Talbot’s camp before, i. 231.
Boyse, see Boethius, ii. 177.
Brackenbury, ii. 64.
Bramham Moor, battle of, i. 136.
Brandon, Sir William, ii. 125; slain at Bosworth, 140,— See
Suffolk.
Bretagne. — See Arthur and Constance.
Broderip, W. J., ii. 117.
Bruges, or Bourges, Archbishop of, i. 180, 182.
Brutus, the Tribune, ii. 229.
Marcus, iis 232; his speech to the people, 236, 2309 ;
his opinion upon suicide, 254; his quarrel with Cassius,
259; his character, 262,263; Coleridge upon him, 262, 291,
Buchanan, George, ii. 184,
Buckingham, Humphrey Stafford, Duke of, i. 260, 265, 266,
273, 280; on Henry’s side, 312.
— Henry Stafford (his grandson), ii. 70, 73,77 ;
united with Gloucester, 83, 86, 88, 89; deserts him,
104-9; executed, 111; his character, 117.
Edmund Stafford (son of the last), ii, 120; op-
318 INDEX.
posed to Wolsey; 122,123; arrested, 125, 129; his dying
speech 131.
Burbage, i. v; ii. 116,
Burgundy, Duke of, John, sans-peur, i. 151, 178, 208, 209.
Philip his son, i. 208, 228, 229, 237, 252.
Busby, Sir John, i. 47, 54.
Cade Jack, i. 297-304.
Cesar, Julius, the play, ii. 231, 311.
ii, 232; his death, 235; oration over his body,
239; his character, 261, 262,
Octavius, ii. 247, 267, 274.
Caithness, Scottish noble, ii, 200.
Calphurnia, ii. 235.
Calverley, Sir John, killed at Shrewsbury, i. 118.
Cambridge, Richard, Earl of, conspires against Henry V.,
i. 2°74.
Campbell, Thomas, on the characters in Henry IV., i. 78,
97,118; on Agincourt, 211; on King John, ii. 302, 303 ;
on Henry VIII., 308; on Julius Cesar, 313.
Campeggio, Cardinal, ii. 151.
Canning, George, quotes Shakspeare, i. 53.
Canterbury, Archbishop of.— See Chicheley, Bourchier, War-
ham, Cranmer.
Capucius, ii. 164.
Carlisle, Thomas Marks, Bishop of, his speech, i. 54, 69.
Casca, ii. 263.
Cassius, his deprecation of Cesar, ii. 232; Czesar’s reflection
on him, 233; his quarrel with Brutus, 248; his suicide,
255.
Catesby, ii. 83, 104.
Catherine of France, daughter of Charles VI., married to
Henry V. ii. 208-10.
of Arragon, Queen, reproaches Wolsey, ii. 126 ;
her divorce, 142-161; her speech at the trial, 148; Henry’s
character of her, 152; her death, 161.
Cato, Coriolanus compared to, li. 215, 230.
Cawdor, thanedom of, ii. 176, 179, 182, 183.
INDEX. 319
Caxton, his Chronicle, i. 263.
Chamberlain, Lord, ii. 134, 140, 161, 166.
Chancellor, Lord, Sir Thomas More, i. 178; ii, 158; Bi-
shop Goderich, 166.
Charles VI., King of France, i. 178.
Charles V., Emperor, ii. 124, 141.
Chatham, Earl of, i. iv.
Chatillon, supposed ambassador from France, i. 2.
battle of, i. 232.
Chicheley, Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, i. 161, 165,
167, 170.
Christening of Princess Elizabeth, ii. 167.
Chronicles, English, i. 12, 161,
Scottish, ii. 177.
Church, exactions from, i, 28.
Cicero, not in the plot against Cesar, ii. 235; his orations and
letters, 256.
Clarence, George Plantagenet, Duke of, his age, i. 214;
created duke, ii.18; presents Queen Elizabeth Grey, 23;
quarrels with Edward, 26; joins Warwick, 29; marries
Isabel Neville, 29, 31, 37, 39; returns to Edward, 35,
41, 42; his part in Prince Edward’s death, 45-9; his im-
prisonment and death, 64, 69, 71, 73, 75.
Cleopatra, Queen, her voyage down the Cydnus, ii. 264;
Plutatch’s account of her, 266; her dialogue with An-
tony, 268; her character, 272, 274.
Clifford, Thomas, twelfth lord, slain, 1. 312; ii. 4.
John, thirteenth lord, ii. 1; slays Rutland, 11.
Clifton, Sir John, slain at Shrewsbury, i. 117.
Cobbam, Elinor, Duchess of Gloucester, i. 222; accused
of witchcraft, 270 ; Queen Margaret’s description of her,
273.
Cockayne, Sir John, killed at Shrewsbury, i. 118.
Coke, Lord Chief Justice, i. 140.
Coleridge, S.T., on historical plays, i. ix; on Richard 1T.,
43, 73; on Coriolanus, ii. 230; on Julius Cesar, 262, 291 ;
on Antony and Cleopatra, 274; on Shakspeare, generally,
288, 289; onthe female characters, 291.
320 INDEX.
Coleville of the Dale, Sir John, i. 135.
Collier, J. P., i. 364.
Commons, House of, i. §1, 167, 257, 262, 283, 284, 285,
298, 308.
Constance of Bretagne, i. 7; her age and character, 8, 11;
her grief, 21, 22, 28, 32.
Corbet, Bishop, his iter boreale quoted.
Coriolanus, the play, ii. 210, 299, 310.
-—— his character, 213, 225, 229; stands for the con-
sulate, 216.
Council divided by Gloucester, ii. 83.
Coronation, of John, i, 24; of Anne Boleyn, ii. 161.
Courtenay, Sir Peter, i. 51.
Sir Edward, ii, 105,
———— Peter, Bishop of Exeter, ii, 110.—-See Devon-
shire, Earl of.
Cranmer, Archbishop, ii. 153, 158; accused, 165; his pro-
phetic speech, 167, 172.
Crecy, battle of, i, 172,
Crevant, battle of, i. 223.
Cromwell of Wingfield, one of Talbot’s titles, i. 235,
—— Thomas Lord, scene with Wolsey, ii. 158; his
promotion, 165.
Crown scene in Henry IV., i. 144.
Croyland, continuation of the register of, i. 221, &c.
Culross, battle of, ii. 177.
D’Albret, Charles, Constable of France, i. 178, 189.
Daru, Hist. de Bretagne, i. 6, 11,
Davison, secretary, i, 20.
Dauphin of France, Louis, son of Philip Augustus, i, 25, 29.
Louis, son of Charles VI., i. 173, 178,
189.
———-—— Charles, afterwards Charles VII., i. 225,
259.
Desmond, the old Countess of, ii. 62.
Devonshire, Thomas Courtenay, fifth Earl of, i. 308.
INDEX. 321
Devonshire, Thomas Courtenay (his son), sixth Earl of, ii.
OG, 1B.
John Courtenay (brother to the last), ii. 49.
Humphrey Stafford, Earl of, ii. 30.
Diet, English and French, i. 185, 189.
Dion Cassius, ii. 256; his speech of Mark Antony, 258.
Dionysius Halicarnassensis, ii, 216.
Dorset, Thomas Grey, Marquis, Lord Chamberlain, ii, 161.
Marchioness of, ii. 167.
Douglas, Archibald, Earl of, i. 76; his character, 78, 107.
James, Earl of, i. 100,
Dover, George Charles Lord, on the death of Richard IT.,
73:
Duffe, King of Scotland, story respecting, ii. 191.
Dugdale, i. 26, 249.
Duncan, King of Scotland, ii. 176,
Dunois, bastard of Orleans, i. 223. .
Dunsinane, hill and castle of, ii. 196, 203.
Eastcheap, riot in, i. 151.
Edward, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI., ii. 26, 31, 34;
his death, 45.
Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March, afterwards King Ed-
ward IV., i. 310; ii. 1; said to have urged his father to
break his oath, ii. 8,9; obtains a victory at Mortimer’s
Cross, 13; has possession of the government, 20; his
marriage with Lady Grey, 20-23; contemplated marriage
with Bona of Savoy, 24; flies to Flanders, and lands
again at York, 34; taken prisoner and escapes—disclaims
the crown, 36, 38; before Coventry, 41; his decree, 43;
his treatment of the son of Henry VI., 45; enumerates
his foes slain, 54; his character, 56; his death-bed speech,
74; his concern in the death of Clarence, 7b.
V., brought to London, 77; speaks for his mother’s
relations, 81; murder of him and his brother, 93.
Edwards, ——, his criticisms, i. 94.
Elinor, Queen, widow of Henry II., 1. 7, 8.
Elizabeth, queen of Edward 1V.—See Grey, Lady,
P3
322 INDEX,
Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV. (afterwards Queen of
Henry VII.), Richard’s intention to marry her, ii. 101 ;
dresses like Queen Anne, 202; her letter to the Duke of
Norfolk, 103; destined for Richmond, 109. ©
Princess (afterwards Queen), ii. 166.
Ellis, Sir Henry, Letters on English History, i. 309.
Elmham, Thomas of, i. 167, 169, 105, 205, 209, 210, 221;
follows Titus Livius, 85.
Ely, Bishop of.—See Fordham and Morton.
Elyot, Sir Thomas, his ‘ Governor,’ i. 140.
Embassies to France, i. 179.
English, their diet, i. 185, 189; their supposed superiority
over the French, 189.
Enobarbus, ii. 265, 274.
Erpingham, Sir Thomas, i. 192.
Erskine, Thomas Lord, ii. 194.
Essex, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, Earl of, i. 27.
Robert Devereux, Ear! of, supposed allusion to him,
i. 207.
Eutropius, ii. 210,
Exeter, John Holland, Duke of, i. 57, 72, 253.
Thomas Beaufort, Duke of, i. 166, 171, 179, 185,
186, 194, 197, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 224, 225, 240, 303,
his death, 231; confusion respecting him, 252.
John Holland, Duke of, i. 293, 296.
Henry Holland, Duke of, i. 305; ii. 58.
Fabyan, i. 256 ; ii. 90,93; his friend, i. 262.
Falconbridge, Robert, i. 28, 268, 274, 278, 281, 283, 287,
306, 310.
one of Talbot’s titles, i. 235.
Falstaff, Sir John, i. 81, 83, 135, 156, 158.
Farmer, Dr., i. 36, 212.
Fastolfe, Sir John, i. 230.
Female Characters.— See Coleridge and Jameson.
Fife, Earl of i. 75.
Fluellen, Captain, i. 186,
Fordham, John, Bishop of Ely, i. 161,
INDEX. 323
Fordun, his polychronicon, ii. 177-
Fox, Edward, bishop of Hereford, ii. 153.
France, English regency of, i. 220, 250, 275, 280.
King of, Charles VI., i. 178, 223; Charles VII., i.
232; Francis I., ii. 120, 123, 124,
losses in, i. 218, 223, 292.
negotiations with, after the battle of Agincourt, i-
208,
succession to thecrown of, i. 164, 170.
Suffolk’s truce with, i. 258.
— treaty with, Henry and Francis, ii. 123.
French soldiers, i. 184.
Fulthorpe, or Fulford, Judge, i. 134.
Fulvia, wife of Mark Antony, ii. 267.
Furnival, one of Talbot’s titles, i, 235.
Gadshill, robbery at, i. 82.
Gaillard, his narrative, i. 71.
Gam, Davy, i. 204.
Gardiner, Stephen, ii. 142, 153, 165.
Garrick, Dayid, ii. 116.
Garter, oath of aknight of the, ii. 107.
Gascoigne, Chief Justice, i. 198.
Gaunt, John of, remonstrates with Richard II., i. 43; his
death-bed speech, 45; his property seized by the king, 47.
Germans admire Shakspeare, i. v.
Gifford, William, on Massinger and Shakspeare, ii. 298, 305.
Glendower, Owen, i. 75, 76, 108, 124; his character and
acquirements, 78, 96, 98; his death, 127.
Glamis, thanedom of, ii. 182,
Gloucester, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of, his death, i.
38, 40, 73.
Duchess of, his wife, i. 52.
Humphrey, Duke of, i. 208, 713, 2313; his quar-
rel with Cardinal Beaufort, 217, 237, 239; Lord Protec-
tor, 221, 224; dismissed, 275; objects to the release of
the Duke of Orleans, 229; his conduct as to Henry’s mar-
riage, 254, 261, 264; cabal against him, 266,276; his po-
eel
324 INDEX,
pularity and character, 268, 313; his death, 281, 282,
303; his wives, 222.
Gloucester, Richard Plantagenet, afterwards, Duke of, and
subsequently Richard III., i. 313; ii. 1, 12, 13, 17, 97,
68, 83; character and designs ascribed to him, ii. 13, 29,
55, 60, 70, 116; his deformity, ii. 23, 51, 61, 63; his age,
‘39; his part in Prince Edward’s death, 45; and in that of
King Henry, 50; of Clarence, 64, 70; his marriage, 65;
his conduct on the death of Edward 1V., 77-82; his at-
tempts upon the throne, 83, 89, 90, 92; Walpole’s justifi-
cation of him, 88; his part in the death of the young
prince, 93; in that of Queen Anne, 99; his intended
marriage with Elizabeth, 99, 101; the rising against him,
104; his conduct before the battle of Bosworth, 111;
Coleridge’s opinion of the character, 307.
Goderig, one of Talbot's titles, i. 235.
Gough, Matthew, i. 306.
Grafton quoted, i. 272, 274.
Green, Sir Henry, i. 47, 52, 54.
Grey, Sir Thomas, i. 174.
Elizabeth, wife of Edward IV., ii. 20, 26, 66,90, 92,
103, 204; her remonstrances, 28, 69; takes sanctuary, 82:
gained by Richard IITI., 101, 102, invites her son to quit
Richmond, 110,
Richard, her son, it. 66.
Grove’s Life of Wolsey, ti. 128.
notes on Henry VIILI., 11.
Guienne and Gascony, i. 231, 233.
Guildfords, the, of Kent, ii. 105, 110.
Hall quoted, passim, his date, ii. 119.
Hallam, Henry, on the succession of John to the throne,
i, 2; on the quarrel of Bolingbroke and Mowbray, 41; on
Shakspeare generally, ii. 293; on the historical plays, 296,
on Massinger, 299; on the first part or Henry VI.. 306;
on Macbeth, 309; on Coriolanus, 310; on Julius Cesar,
311; on Antony and Cleopatra, 313; on the three Roman
plays, 314.
INDEX. 325
Harcourts, the, 1. 136.
Hardy, T. D., i. 3, 21, 31.
Hardyng, a follower of the Percies, i. 77; a Yorkist edition
of his Chronicle,
Harfleur besieged, i. 182, 186,
Hastings, Edward, i. 123,
Lord, ii. 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 89; beheaded, 86.
Henry IV. Part I., the play, i. 75, 158; ii. 304.
II., the play, i. 113, 158; part of it trans-
ferred to Richard III., ib.
V., the play, i. 150, 210; ii. 306,
VI., Part I., the play, i. 212; the authorship, ib.
2333 ii. 57, 58, 306.
VITI., the play, ii. 118, 308,
IV. (see Bolingbroke), his wish that his son had been
changed, i. 80; his remonstrances with him, 101, 142; his
death, 437; his projected expedition to the Holy Land,
li. 75, 150; his character, 159.
Prince, afterwards Henry V., his character and con.
duct as prince, i. 78, 79, 81, 57, 162, 163; his account of
himself, 85; a musician, 97; compared to Richard II.,
103; his strange dress and interview with his father, 7b. ;
his swiftness of foot, 109 ; his horsemanship, 110; his cha-
rity and temper, 142; his companions, 82, 109; at the
battle of Shrewsbury, 114; story of the chief justice, 137,
154; his father’s remonstrances, 101, 142; whether put
out of the council, 152; question as to his youthful wild-
ness, 83, 150 ; his supposed attempt to usurp regal autho-
rity, 153; becomes king, 7b. ; his change of manners, 155;
his treatment of his old friends, 156.—See Henry V.
V., the archbishop’s character of him, i. 162; Hol-
linshed’s, 7b. ; his claims on France, 164, 173; resolved
upon war, 180; his address to his soldiers, 183; to the
French herald, 188; scene with his soldiers, 192; his ap-
peal to heaven, ib.; his address to Westmoreland, 195;
his order to kill prisoners, 201; his rencontre with Alen-
con, 205; his piety, 7b.; his triumphal return, 7. ; his
326 | INDEX.
death and dying injunctions, 213, 218; his character, 211 ;
in the play, 214; by Holinshed, 1.
** Henry V., the famous victories of,” old play, i. 82.
VI., crowned at Paris, i. 230, 250; mediates between
York and Somerset, 250; his proposed marriage with the
daughter of the Earl of Armagnac, 252; with Margaret of
Anjou, 253, 260; his supposed hostility to Duke Hum-
phrey, 276; his remonstrance with the Queen on account
of Suffolk, 286; his compromise with York, ii. 1, 7; arbi-
trates between York and Somerset, 4; before the city of
York, 15; retires into Scotland, 19; returns and is made
prisoner, 20; released, 34; appoints Warwick and Clarence
protectors, 37; his speech in his own behalf, 40; again
made prisoner, 42; his death, 50; his character, 59.
VII.— See Richmond.
VIII., his meeting with Francis I., ii. 119; his re-
mission of taxes, 127; dances with Anne Boleyn, 136;
first talk of his marrying her, 140, 145; determines to try
the divorce case, 142; his letters to Anne, 145; his con-
duct at the trial, 151; discontented with the cardinals,
153; Campbell’s view of his dramatic character, 308.
Hemingford, Walter, i. 5.
Herbert, Sir Walter, partizan of Henry VII., ii. 111.
Hexham, battle of, ii. 20.
Hereford.— See Bolingbroke.
one of Buckingham’s titles, ii. 125.
Holinshed, i. 1, 12, et passim; his date, ii. 119.
Homildon, battle of, i. 75.
Hook, Theodore, i. iii.
Horses, French, do not neigh at Agincourt, i. 193.
Hotspur, i. 75-118; his character, 78; supposed rivalry with
Prince Henry, 80, 88; his speech about the prisoners, 87;
his letters, 90; his dislike of music and poetry, 97; his
accusation of Henry IV., 111; at the battle of Shrews-
bury, 115; his death, 116,
Howard of Corby, Mr., ii. 103.
Howards, the, i. 36.
INDEX, 327
Hoveden, i. 4, 8, 11, 27.
Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, i. 4; his supposed speech
for King John, 5.
Hubert de Burgh, scenes with John, i. 18, 19, 32; called an
upstart, 25, 26.
Hume, David, quoted, i. 62, 74, 167, 173; founds an inci-
dent on Shakspeare, 155; ii. 177.
Huntingdon, John Holland, Earl of, 252.—See Exeter.
Isabel of France, Queen of Richard I]., i. 52, 60, 63, 65.
of Carlile, first wife of Edmund, Duke of York, i. 66.
Jacqueline of Hainault, Duchess of Gloucester, i. 222.
James I., Cranmer’s prophetic speech respecting him, ii, 168.
his supposed descent form Banquo, 193.
Jameson, Mrs., on Constance, i. 33; on Lady Percy, 94; on
Queen Margaret, 272, 287; ii. 57, 58; on the Duke of
York’s speech, and death, ii. 11; on the authorship of
Henry VI. Part L., ii. 58; on Queen Catherine, 126,170;
on Lady Macbeth, 188, 207 ; on Volumnia, 223; on Cleo-
patra, 270, 2'74.
Jerusalem Chamber, the, i. 150.
Joan of Are, i. 225, 226, 227; taken and burned, 236.
John, King, the play, i. 1.
stands out against the Pope, i. 13; scenes with
Hubert, 19, 32; question as to his coronation, 24; sub-
mits to the Pope, 29; his death, 31; character, 27, 33.
Johnson, Dr., his general criticisms on the several plays, see
the end of each play ; on Richard II., i. 52, 55, 65; on
Henry IV., 133, 145; on Henry V., 197; on Henry VI.,
213, 233, 290; ii. 13; on Henry VIII., 161; on his cri-
ticisms generally, 261.
Julius Cesar.— See Cesar.
Justice, Chief.— See Gascoigne
new one appointed by Henry V. 154.
Keightley, History of Rome, ii. 213.
Kemble, John, on Macbeth and Richard III., ii. 208.
328 INDEX.
Kemp, John, Archbishop of York, i. 268,
Kighley, Sir Richard, slain at Agincourt, i. 234.
Lancaster.— See Gaunt, and John.
Langton, Cardinal Sephen, i. 12, 28.
Leland, Collectanea, i. 9, 263, 3103 ii. 9.
Lenox, Scottish noble, ii, 200.
Lennox, Mrs., quoted, i. 296.
Lepidus, the triumvir, ii. 247, 267.
Lewis, son of Philip Augustus, 1. 10, 25, 29.
Lingard quoted, on the marriage of Henry VI.,i, 257; on
charges against Cardinal Beaufort and Duchess Elenor,
270,272; on Henry’s prejudice against Humphrey, 276 ;
on the succession of regents of France, 280; on the pro-
cess against Suffolk, 287; on Beaufort’s projects, 292; on
Cade’s rebellion, 306; on the committal of Somerset, 312;
on the death of York, ii. 9; on Henry’s breach of agree-
ment, 16; on Henry’s capture, 20; on the captivity of Ed-
ward, 35; on the white rose, 38; on the death of Prince
Edward, 49; on Clarence’s jealousy of Warwick, 65; on
the train accompanying Edward V., 78; on the decided
councils, 85; and Richard’s proceedings, 88; on the
alleged illegitimacy of Edward IV., 90; on the death of
Queen Anne, 102; on Buckingham’s arrest, 125, 129; on
Anne Boleyn, 136-150, 156 ; on Wolsey’s arrest, 161; e¢
passim.
Lisle, John Talbot, Viscount, i. 232.
Livius, Titus, chronicler so called, i. 85.
Livy, quoted, ii. 216; his story of Coriolanus, 225; his
foundations, 226; his account of intestine broils, 227.
Longland, John, Bishop of Lincoln, ii. 143.
Longsword.— See Salisbury.
Lords, House of, judgment in cases of treason, i. 312; arti-
cles against Wolsey prepared in, 157.
Lovel, Lord, i. 100.
Sir Thomas, ii. 136, 132.
Lucy, Sir William, i. 233.
Luders, Alexander, on Henry V.,i. 80; on the robbery, 84;
INDEX. 329
on the chief justice story, 140; conduct and character,
152, 153, 155.
Lulach, supposed son of Macbeth, ii. 204, 205.
Macbeth, the play, ii. 174, 309.
employed against Macdonwald, ii, 176; meets the
witches, 178; again, 199; became Thane of Glamis and
Cawdor—contemplates the murder of Duncan, 182; the
story doubtful, 192; his soliloquies, 186; his dialogues
with his wife, 186, 187, 190,194; his murder of Banquo,
194; treatment of Macduff and his family, 195; his death,
203; his character, 180, 198, 200, 208,
Lady, ii. 184; her soliloquy, 185; her character,
189, 207; her sleep-walking, 199.
Macdonwald, his rebellion, ii. 176.
Macduff, his refusal to come to Macbeth, ii. 195; his story
from Wyntown, 196; dialogue with Malcolm, 199; his
supposed conflict with Macbeth, 203.
Mackintosh, Sir James, his History of England, i. 223, 262,
296.
Macpherson, James, notes on Wyntown, ii. 178, 181.
Magna Charta, not noticed by Shakspeare, i. 30; ii. 30; ii.
202,
Maid of Orleans. — See Joan.
Mailros, Chronicle of, ii. 192.
Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland, afterwards Malcolm III.,
ii. 183; suspects Macbeth, and flies, 193; doubts of his
legitimacy, 7b.; dialogue with Macduff, 199; has a party,
200; king, 204.
Malone, Edmund, his historical notes, i. xii et passim; his
opinion on the authorship of Henry VI. i, 212, 227; ii, 12.
March, Dunbar, Scottish Ear] of, i. 107.
Edmund Mortimer, Earl of, confounded with ano-
ther Edmund, i. 92.
Edward Plantagenet, Earl of. —See Edward.
Margaret of Anjou, her marriage, how brought about, i. 254,
262; her appearance at court, 260; cabals against Glou-
ee
330 INDEX.
cester, 266, 275, 280, 283; her love of Suffolk, 285, 287,
296; her part in Somerset’s release, 310; refuses to ac-
knowledge her husband’s compromise, ii. 8 ; her treatment
of York at the battle of Wakefield, 10 ; at York city, 17;
retires to Scotland and France, 19 ; reconciled to Warwick ;
25, 36; at the battle of Tewksbury, 46, 48, 50; her cha-
racter, 573; re-appearsin Richard ITI., 69.
Mark Antony.—See Antony.
Marlborough, great Duke of, said to have learned history
from Shakspeare, i. iv.
Marney, Sir Henry, ii. 125.
Marshall, William.— See Pembroke.
Mary, sister of Henry VIII., wife of Louis XII. and of the
Duke of Suffolk, ii. 140.
daughter of Henry VIII. (afterwards Queen), ii. 144.
Massie, sir John, killed at Shrewsbury, i. 118.
Massinger, his rhythm compared with Shakspeare’s, ii. 298 ;
his supposed imitation of Shakspeare, 305.
Matthew Paris quoted, i. 4, 12.
Melun, Count, i. 31, 32.
Menenius Agrippa, his fable, ii. 212, 230,
Menteth, Scottish noble, ii. 200, 201.
Merlin, his prophecies, i. 99.
Meulan, meeting near, i. 208, 210,
Meyrick, Sir Gilly, indicted for acting Richard II., i. 35.
Monstrelet, his account of Prince Henry’s taking the crown,
i. 149.
Montagu, John Neville, Marquis of, ii. 1
Montargis, battle of, i. 223.
Montjoy, French herald, i. 187.
More, Sir Thomas, his History of Richard III., ii. 61; its
date, 62, 63, 65, 71, 75, 79, 82, 87, 89, 95, 97, 99, 101;
when it ceases, 107.
Morritt of Rokeby, 1. 94.
Mortimer, Sir Hugh, killed at Shrewaltete i, 118,
Edmund, taken by Glendower, i. 75; his ransom
refused, 86, 91; supposed to have been captured inten-
tionally, 91; uncle and nephew confounded, 92.
Samana
INDEX, 3o1
Mortimer, Edmund, Earl of March, his claim to the crown,
i. 177, 245-6.
Mortimer’s cross, battle of, i. 13.
Morton, John, Bishop of Ely, afterwards Archbishop, ii. 62,
97, 106.9.
Mowbray. — See Norfolk.
—— Thomas, son of the banished duke, i, 123, 134, 159.
Music despised by Hotspur, i. 88, 97.
cultivated by Prince Henry, 97,
Naseby, battle of, i. 198.
Nevilles, the, ii. 40.
Niebuhr’s History of Rome, ii. 211, 226, 229,
Nicolas, Sir Harris, on Hotsputir’s letters, i, 90; value of
his ‘ Battle of Agincourt,’ 160,
Norfolk, Roger Bigot, Earl of, i. 26.
Thomas Mowbray, Duke of, accused by Boling-
broke, i. 36; concerned in the affair of Radcot Bridge, 39 ;
banished, 42.
John Mowbray, third duke, his nephew, i. 302; ii. 1.
John Howard, first duke of that name, a partizan of
Richard III., ii. 111.
Thomas Howard, second duke (see Surrey), describes
‘the Field of the Cloth of Gold, ii. 120,
third duke, confounded by Shakspeare
with his father, ii. 140; enemy of Wolsey, 155; and of
Cranmer, 166. .
Agnes, Duchess of, widow of the second duke, ii,
167,
Normandy, loss of, i. 234, 254, 308.
North, Sir Thomas, his translation of Plutarch, ii. 211.
Northampton, battle of, ii. 6.
one of Buckingham’s titles, ii. 125.
Northumberland, Henry Percy, first Earl of, joins Boling-
broke, i. 48, 56, 58,62; King Richard’s address to him,
65; his character, 74; does not rise against Henry IV.,
107, 121,
—— Henry Percy, fourth Earl of, ii. 112.
332 INDEX.
Octavia, second wife of Mark Antony, ii. 273, 274. .
Octavius Cesar, ii. 246, 267, 274.
Orleans, Duke of (Louis, brother to Charles VI.), i. 152, 189;
his release, 228, 284,
Maid of..— See Joan.
siege of, i. 225.
bastard of (Dunois), i. 223, 259.
Ostrich feather, the badge of the Prince of Wales, ii. 34.
Otterbourne quoted, i. 76.
Oxford, John de Vere, thirteenth earl, a partizan of Henry
VI. ii. 14; of Henry VII. 111.
Palgrave, Sir Francis, i. 303.
Pandulph, the Pope’s legate, i. 12.
Paris balls. — See Tennis.
Parisians, revolt against Henry VI., i. 236.
Parliament, at Shrewsbury, 1398. i. 40; Westminster, 1404,
61; Leicester, 1414, 167; Leicester, 1425, 240, 248;
Westminster, 1445, 266; Bury St. Edmunds, 1447, 281;
Westminster and Leicester, 1450, 285 ; Westminster, 1451,
308; Reading, 1453, 311; Westminster, 1455, ii. 3; Co-
ventry, 1459 or 1460, 5; Westminster, 1461, 6; West-
minster, 1477, 73.
Parr, Catherine, Queen of Henry VIII. ii. 166,
Participle used as an adverb, i. 138.
Paston letters quoted, i. 229, 295, 296, 308.
Patay, battle of, i. 224, 225.
Pembroke, William Marshall, Earl of, i. 4, 25, 27.
Jasper Tudor, Earl of, ii. 13, 30, 111.
—— Marchioness of, Anne Boleyn so created, ii. 148.
Percies, the, rise against Henry IV., i. 107; their manifesto,
111.
Percy, Lady, wife of Hotspur, 1. 94.
Lord, the lover of Anne Boleyn, ii. 146.
Philip Augustus, King of France, i. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 21, 28.
Philippi, battle of, ii. 255, 260.
Pictorial Shakspere, ii. 276, 300.
Pistol, ancient, i. 185, 192, 200.
INDEX. 300
Pix stolen by a soldier in France, i 184.
Plantagenet, Richard (afterwards Duke of York), i. 244; his
claim to the crown, 247; claims his dukedom, 248.— See
York.
—— Margaret, daughter of Clarence, married to Sir
Richard Pole, ii. 99.
Plebeians of Rome, ii. 214, 217, 222, 226, 243, 310.
Plutarch, ii. 211, 256.
Poins, Ned, companion of Prince Henry, i. 84,
Pole, Sir Richard, married to Margaret Plantagenet, ii. 99.
Cardinal, ii. 145.
Polydore Vergil, his date, ii. 119, 129.
Pope, the, King John stands out against, i. 13, 28; surren-
ders his crown to him, 29,
Alexander, on Shakspeare’s characters, ii.
Portia, wife of Brutus, ii. 263.
Poynings, Lord, i. 223.
Poyntzes of Sussex, i. 84.
Prisoners at Agincourt put to death, i, 200,
Proclamation against foreign customs, ii. 135.
Punctuation, effect of a mistake in, i. 76.
Quarterly Review on historical references, ii. 279.
Radcote Bridge, affair of, i. 39.
Rambures, Lord of, i. 139.
Rapin quoted, i. 229, 249, 254, 280.
Regnier, Duke of Anjou, i. 225, 255.
Renée, sister of the wife of Francis I., ii. 139.
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, his death of Cardinal Beaufort, i. 200.
Rhythm, remarks on Shakspeare’s, i. 101.
Richard II., the play, i. 34; ii. 304; Sir Gilly Meyrick in-
dicted for acting, i. 35, 64.
King, suspected of Gloucester’s murder, i. 40; his
address to, 55; his prayer, 56; his conference with Bo-
lingbroke at Flint, 59; charges against him, 62; his pro-
gress from Flint to Chester, 66; his death, 71, 111; cha-
334 INDEX.
racter and behaviour, 59, 63, 73; his devotion to France,
64.
Richard III., the play, i. 119; ii. 60, 118, 307,
See Gloucester.
Richmond, Margaret, Countess of, ii. 67.
Henry Earl of, afterwards Henry VII., prophecy
of Henry VI. respecting him ; ii. 37 ; aims at marrying the
Princess Elizabeth, 29, 109; embarks for England, 105 ;
lands at Milford, 106; his speech to his men, 114; his
title, ib.
Rise ap Thomas, partizan of Henry VIL,, ii. 111.
Rivers, Anthony Widville, Lord, ii. 66, 74, 77, 78; exe-
cuted, 79.
Roderick, Mr., on Shakspeare’s versification, ii, 171.
Rokeby, Sheriff of Northumberland, i. 94.
Roman history, plays founded upon, ii. 210, 314.
Roses, red and white, scene in the Temple Gardens, 244;
first quarrel about them, 249; roses worn by the Yorkists
ii. 35, 39; doubts concerning them, 41, 42,
Ross (or Roos), William, Lord, i. 48,
Rosse, Scottish noble, ii. 200,
Rouen, entered by Joan of Are, i. 48.
Rous, John, his account of Richard III., ii. 63.
Russell, first lord, ii. 166.
Rutland, Earl of. — See Aumerle.
—- Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of, claim by Clifford,
ii, 11.
Salic law, i. 195.
Salisbury, William Longsword, Earl of, i. 24.
— John de Montacute, seventh earl of, i. 218, 223,
225,
— Richard Neville, Earl of, a partizan of York, i.
233, 260,265; supports Gloucester, 268 ; opposes Suffolk
and the Cardinal, 213; takes up arms, 312; ii. 3, 4.
Salisbury, William Ayscough, Bishop of, i. 285,
Sands, Sir William, afterwards Lord, i. 134, 140.
Say, James Fiennes, Lord, i. 285, 306.
INDEX. 335
Schlegel, Augustus William, his criticisms, i. vi. ix, 103.
— Frederick, i. xi.
Scotland, old saw respecting, i. 166; history of, obscure, ii.
175.
Scrope, Richard, Archbishop of York, rebels against Henry
IV., i 120, 121, 128,
Henry, third lord, of Masham, conspires against
Henry V., i. 174.
Shakspeare, history learned from him, i. iv; ii. 277; no in-
ventor of plots, i. viii; his anachronisms defended by Schle-
gel, ix, 230; his loyalty and high Tory notions, 44, 50,
55, 300; ii. 217, 311; his rhythm and versification, i. 101,
145, 212; ii. 171, 209, 297; compared with Massinger’s,
298; his characters, i. 158, 171; ii. 282, 285; female cha-
racters, 291; question whether he wrote Henry VI., i. 212,
See Campbell, Coleridge, Hallam, Johnson, Schlegel.
passages quoted from—John’s speech to the
legate, i. 1; scene with Hubert, 19; on Arthur’s death,
23; on the double coronation, 24; on Bolingbroke’s popu-
larity, 44; on the kingly character, 55; the garden scene
in Richard IT., 60; Richard’s address to Northumberland,
65; description of Richard and Bolingbroke, 67; Prince
Henry on his own reformation, 85, 155, 157; Hotspur on
denying his prisoners, 87; on honours, 99 ; on music, 97;
Glendower, translation from his wife, 98 ; expostulation of
Henry IV. with his son, 101; description of the prince
and his companions, 100, 110; Hotspur’s remonstrance
with the King, 111; Worcester’s, 113, 129; Northumber-
Jand on the change of popular sentiment, 124; Lady Percy
on her husband, 125; King Henry’s address to sleep, 126;
character of Prince Henry, 142, 143; the King’s lamen-
tations for his son, 143; the crown scene, 145; the Arch-
bishop upon Henry V., 162; Henry’s address to Lord
Scrope, 175; chorus on Henry’s passage to France, 1813
Henry’s address to the herald, 188; chorus on the eve of
Agincourt, 190; Henry’s address to God, 192; on the wish
for more men, 195; chorus on Henry’s triumphal entry,
205; Gloucester’s lamentations on the Anjou match, 264 ;
.
336 INDEX,
Salisbury on Gloucester and the Cardinal, 261; Margaret
on Elinor Cobham, 273; on Gloucester, 276; Gloucester’s
defence, 278; the Cardinal’s death-bed scene, 289; con-
versation of Jack Cade and his followers, 298 ; Margaret’s
address to the Duke of York, ii. 10; Gloucester (Richard)
on himself, 23, 51, 67, 70; Queen Elizabeth’s expostula-
tions, 28, 69; Henry VI. on himself, 40; Prince Edward
on his mother, 45; Henry’s address to Gloucester, 50; Ed-
ward IV. on Clarence’s death, 75; Richard III. trying
Buckingham, 93; description of the Field of the Cloth of
Gold, 120; Wolsey on the fate of place, 128; Bucking-
ham’s dying speech, 131; Lovell on foreign customs, 835 ;
Wolsey and Henry on the divorce, 141; Queen Cathe-
rine’s speech on the trial, 148; Henry to Catherine, 152;
dialogue between Wolsey and Cromwell, 158; Wolsey’s
journey, 162; Catherine and Griffith on his character, 163 ;
Cranmer at the christening of Elizabeth, 167; Macbeth on
the contemplation of the murder, 182, 186; Lady Mac-
beth’s invocation, 185 ; their conversation, 187, 190; Mac-
beth’s description of Duncan dead, 191; on Banquo’s
intended murder, 194 ; on the eve of the battle, 201; Co-
riolanus on the people, 219; address to them, 221; Bru-
tus on the eve of the Ides of March, 233; Mark Antony
on Cesar, 239; Brutus to the people, 2b.; Antony, 241;
quarrel-between Brutus and Cassius, 251 ; Antony on Bru-
tus, 255; description of Cleopatra on the Cydnus, 265; An-
tony on Fulvia, 267; dialogue between Antony and Cleo-
patra, 268; Octavius to Octavia, 273; on Pompey, 312.
Shallow, Justice, i. 233.
Shirley, Sir John, killed at Shrewsbury, i. 117.
Shrewsbury, battle of, i. 116.
ae
first Earl of.—See Talbot.
John, second earl of, i. 6.
Sigismund, the Emperor, comes to England, i. 208.
Simeox, Sanders, the blind man cured, i. 274.
Siward, Earl of Northumberland, ii. 200, 203-5.
Somerset, John Beaufort, Earl and first Duke of, i. 231,
245» 251.
INDEX. GOT
Somerset, Edmund, second duke of, i. 233, 240, 260, 265,
266; regent of France, 275, 280; his committal, release,
&¢c. 307-12; ii. 4; slain, 312 ; character, i. 314.
—-—— Henry, third duke, ii. 4, 5.
—— Edmund (query if Duke ?), ii. 29 ; beheaded at
Tewksbury, 30.
— Dukes of, some confusion and doubt respecting
them, i. 233, 245, 246, 251; ii. 44.
Somme, the river passed by Henry V.,, i. 187.
Southampton, Henry V. embarks at, i. 174.
Southey, Robert, learnt history from Shakspeare, i. viii.
Stafford, Edmund, Earl of, killed at Shrewsbury, i. 117.
Humpbhrey, Earl of, afterwards Duke of Bucking-
ham, i. 252; cabals against Gloucester, 266, 273.
Humphrey, son of the Duke of Buckingham, slain at
St. Albans, i. 313. :
Staffords, two killed in Cade’s rebellion, i. 306.—See Buck-
ingham and Devonshire.
Stanley, Sir William, partizan of Henry VILI., ii. 111.
Thomas, second lord, ii. 67, 70, 75, 83, 84, 87; his
son detained as a hostage, 110.
Steevens, George, his historical notes, i. xv; his opinion on
Henry VI., 312.
Sterline, William Alexander, Earl of, his play of Julius Cx-
sar, li. 331.
Strange, one of Talbot’s titles, i. 235.
Stuarts, descent of the royal house of, ii. 195.
Suetonius quoted, ii, 232.
Suffolk, William de Ja Pole, fourth earl and first duke, plucks
a red rose, i. 244; his part in Margaret’s marriage, 255-8 ;
ii. 260-7; cabals against Gloucester, 270, 277, 279, 280,
282; accused of the murder, 283, 284, 285; banished,
286; Margaret's love for him, 287; his death, 293 ; cha-
racter, 314.
Surrey, Thomas Holland, Duke of, i, 41, 57.
Thomas Fitzalan, Ear] of, i. 127.
Thomas Howard, Earl of (afterwards second Duke of
Norfolk), ii, 111.—See Norfolk.
VOL. II, Q
338 INDEX.
Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of, ii. 155.
Swan, white, the badge of Prince Edward, i. 4.
Talbot, Gilbert Lord, at Agincourt, i. 197.
John, first earl of Shrewsbury, defeated and taken at
Patay, i. 224-225; influence of his name, 227; adventure
with the Countess of Auverque, ib.; created earl, 230;
slain with his son, 232; his titles, 235; character, 259.
Sir Gilbert, partizan of Henry VIL, ii. 111.
Tawny coats, i. 237.
Tennis balls sent by the Dauphin to Henry V., i. 172.
Ternoire, the river, passed by Henfy V., i. 187.
Thierry quoted, i. 5.
Thanes, in Scotland, made Earls, ii, 206,
Thomas, Prince, afterwards Duke of Clarence, i.
Tide, unusual, i.
Treason, judgment of the Lords respecting Northumberland’s,
i. 123; Scrope’s, 176,
Triumvirs, meeting of, ii. 247.
Tower of London, i. 237.
Troyes, meeting at, i. 208.
Tullus Aufidius, ii. 224.
Turner, Sharon, i. 153, 300.
Tyler, Rev. J. E., his Henry of Monmouth, i. 80; deficient
in references to authority, 81; on Prince Henty's letter,
ib. ; Hotspur’s letters, 90; on the King’s, 91.
Tytler, Patrick Fraser, historian of Scotland, ii. 175.
Orsius, Des, quoted, i. 173.
Unkinfield, one of Talbot’s titles, i. 235.
Valence, one of Talbot’s titles, i. 234.
Vaughan, Sir Robert, i. 94.
—— Sir Thomas, executed at Pomfret, ii. 79, 81.
Vaux, Sir Nicholas, ii, 132.
Velleius Paterculus, ii. 256,
Verdun, one of Talbot’s titles, i. 235.
Verneuil, battle of, i. 223.
a
INDEX. 339
Vernon, Sir Richard, i. 100.
(another), i. 244, 240.
Vernons, the, i. 136.
Volumnia, mother of Coriolanus, ii. 221, 223,
Walpole, Horace, on Richard IIT. ii. 63.
Warburton, Bishop, quoted, i. 20.
Wakefield, battle of, ii. 9.
Warham, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, il, 143.
' Warwick, Richard Beachamp, Earl of, i. 127, 143, 153, 197,
208, 213, 231, 240, 242; Regent of France, 251, 265.
Richard Neville, Earl of, partizan of York, i. 234,
260, 268, 270, 283, 312; iil. 1; governor of Calais, 3;
rebels against Henry VI., 5; captures him, 6; beaten at
second battle of St. Albans, 14; victorious at Towton, 19;
demands Lady Bona—quarrels with Edward, 24; recon-
ciled to Margaret, 25, 26, 28; cause of the quarrel, 31, 32,
33; with King Henry, 39; before Coventry, 41; slain at
Tewksbury, 44.
——— Earls of, confounded by Shakspeare, i. 213, 269,283.
-—— Plantagenet, Earl of, son of Clarence, ii. 99.
Waterford, one of Talbot’s titles, i. 234.
Waterloo, battle of, i. 198.
Wat Tyler, part of the story transferred to Jack Cade, ii. 304.
Webb, Rev. John, his notes on Richard II., i. 46, 54.
Wellington, Duke of, ii. 313.
Wendesle, Sir Thomas, killed at Shrewsbury, i. 118.
Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, first earl of, i. 76.
Wexford, one of Talbot’s titles, 1. 234.
Whateley, Mr., on Macbeth, ii. 181, 208,
Willoughby, William Lord, i. 48.
Wiltshire, William Scrope, Earl] of, i. 41, 47, 54.
James Butler, Earl of, i. 5.
Witches in Macbeth, ii. 178, 199.
Wolsey, Cardinal, ii. 123; accusations of him, 124; author
of proceedings against Buckingham, 125, 129 ; charged by
Queen Catherine, 126; oppressive exactions, 7b.; his
speech on the accusations against him, 128; his grand
340 INDEX.
entertainmenf, 136; interferes between Anne Boleyn and
Percy, 137, 146; Anne’s cabals against him, 138 ; espouses
the cause of France, 139; joined in commission with
Campeius, 141; justified by Henry, 142, 151; his part in
the divorce and marriage, 145, 150; disgraced, 155; arti-
cles against him, 156; conversation with Cromwell, 158;
his well-known wish, 160; death and character, 162, 171,289,
Woodville, Richard, i. 237.
Worcester, Thomas Percy, Earl of, discontented with Ri-
chard II., i. 48; with Henry 1V., 86; governor of Prince
Henry, 100; his remonstrance with the King, 103.
— Charles Somerset, Earl of, ii. 134. °
Wyntown, Andrew, his Chronicle of Scotland, ii. 177, 181.
York, Archbishops of.—See Scrope and Morton.
—— Edmund, Duke of, son of Edward III., i. 40; discon-
tented with Richard II., 45; Regent, 47; embarrassed,
51, 52; his wives, 66; his character, 73.
— Duchess of, his wife, i. 66, 70.
—— Edward, Duke of (and of Aumerle), his son, is with
Richard II., i. 54; joins Bolingbroke, 57; accused of
Gloucester’s murder, 61; conspires against Bolingbroke,
70; leads the van at Agincourt, 199 ; slain there, 200.
—— Richard, Duke of (see Plantagenet), difference with So-
merset, i. 249, 251; Regent of France, 250; discharged,
261; said to favour Gloucester, 270 ; detects the Duchess:
273; superseded in the regency by Somerset, 275; eabals
against Gloucester, 280 ; instigates Jack Cade, 297, 305;
returns from Ireland, 306 ; encamps at Dartford, 308; sub-
mits, 310; takes up arms again, 312 ; occupies the Parlia-
ment House, ii. 1; lieutenant of the realm, 3; companions
attainted, 2-8 ; defeated and slain at Wakefield, 9.
- Edward, Duke of, afterwards Edward IV.,
Richard, Duke of, brother of Edward V., ii. 82; de-
clared illegitimate, 93.—See Edward V.
THE END.
Printed by J. L. Cox and Sons, 75, Great Queen Street.
Companton to the Gaberley Pohels,
PROSPECTUS
OF
COLBURN’S
MODERN
STANDARD NOVELISTS,
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY THE FINDENS
AND OTHER EMINENT ARTISTS.
EACH WORK COMPLETE IN A SINGLE VOLUME,
PRICE 6s. ELEGANTLY BOUND IN MOROCCO-CLOTH.
HENRY COLBURN, PUBLISHER,
GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET.
TO BE HAD OF ALL BOOKSELLERS.
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
COMPANION TO THE WAVERLEY NOVELS.
Now in course of publication, each work complete in a single
volume, elegantly bound in cloth, price 6s., printed uni-
formly with Byron and Scott, and beautifully embellished
with the Portraits of the Authors, and other Engravings, by
the Findens, and other eminent Artists,
COLBURNS
MODERN
STANDARD NOVELISTS
A SELECT COLLECTION OF
Cie best ehorks of Hiction
OF
THE MOST DISTINGUISHED ENGLISH WRITERS,
WHICH CANNOT BE PROCURED IN ANY OTHER COLLECTION.
Tue Proprietor of the Series here announced having had the
good fortune to publish a very large proportion of the most
masterly modern Works of Fiction—such as have become in-
corporated with the literature of the country,—is obviously
placed in the most favourable position for an undertaking of
this nature ; and he has determined that no composition of
inferior or ephemeral character shall be admitted into the
collection ; but that those works alone which have received
the stamp of unequivocal public approbation, and which may
be read from time to time with still recurring pleasure and
profit, shall constitute the Series. ‘
“* “Colburn’s Modern Standard Novelists’ present a series
of those works of fiction that have most tended, with the writ-
ings of Sir Walter Scott, to elevate this description of litera-
ture. This publication presents a concentration of imaginative
genius.’—Globe.
SS se neomenenannee Set
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
WORKS ALREADY PUBLISHED
IN THIS COLLECTION.
EITHER OF WHICH MAY BE HAD SEPARATELY,
Price ONLY 68. EACH.
SIR L. BULWER’S PELHAM MR. JAMES’S RICHELIEU
SIR L. BULWER’S DEVEREUX MR. HOOK’S SAYINGS AND
eee
SIR L. BULWER’S DISOWNED DOING oF tHer RERIES
MR. HOOK’S SAYINGS AND
DOINGS—SEconD SERIES
MR. H. SMITIV’S BRAMBLE- MR. HOOK’S SAYINGS AND
MR. WARD’S TREMAINE
TYE HOUSE DOINGS—Tairp SERIES
CAPTAIN MARRYAT’S FRANK LADY MORGAN’S FLORENCE
MILDMAY MACARTHY
MR. LISTER’S GRANBY LADY MORGAN’S O’DONNEL
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
“This collection continues to realise the most sanguine expecta-
tions of that large class of readers who, with ourselves, were anxious
to have all the best modern works of fiction brought out on the plan
which Mr. Colburn has so judiciously adopted, and in which elegance
and economy are so happily combined.”’— Sunday Times.
** A truly popular undertaking. The series so got up and embel-
lished, and so cheap, must extend the fame even of the author of
‘ Pelham.’ ’—Literary Gazette.
‘* We earnestly press this cheap and elegant publication of Mr.
Colburn’s on the notice of our readers, under a sincere conviction
that we are doing them a service.”— Scotsman.
*¢ What an admirable opportunity is here presented to such as are
about to form a select library of fiction !'’°—Globe. °
*‘ Thousands, and ten of thousands, will patronize this undertak-
ing.”—Kidd’s Journal.
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
CRITICISMS
ON THE
WORKS
THAT HAVE ALREADY APPEARED.
PELHAM;
OR
THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN.
BY SIR EDWARD LYTTON BULWER.
“In the order of Novels of Fashionable Life, we never expected to
see a production of the talent and utility of ‘ Pelham,’ which immea-
surably excels all other performances of the same genus. We haye
no hesitation in affirming that, of all the novel writers of the present
day, the author of ‘ Pelham’ is the best moralist—perhaps we ought
to say the only moralist, in the scientific sense of the word. The
appearance of such a book is the outward and visible sign of an
improvemeut which we haye hailed with delight in the rising gene-
ration.”— Examine”.
DEVEREUX.
BY THE AUTHOR OF “PELHAM,”
“* Men of all grades, and of every character have been familiar to
me. War—love—ambition—the scroll of ages—the festivals of wit—
the intrigues of states—all that agitates mankind, the hope and,the
fear, the Jabour and the pleasure—the great drama of vanities, with
the little interludes of wisdom ; these have been the occupations of
my manhood—these will furnish forth the materials of that history
which is now open to your survey.’ —Jntroduction.
“A first-rate Novel, the production of a first-rate mind.”—Literary
Gazette.
“This tale includes a series of years, from Charles the Second to
George the Second ; and all the celebrated public characters who
figured during that brilliant and eventful period are introduced as
agents in the story. Lord Bolingbroke is a leading character ; and
the picture, drawn by the novelist, of this great man, is one of the
finest and most dramatic specimens extant of literary portraiture.”—
Globe.
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
THE DISOWNED.
“BY THE AUTHOR OF “ PELHAM.”
**1f ‘ Pelham’ justly raised for its Author a very high character, the
* Disowned’ will raise it far higher.’—Literary Gazette.
‘*1f I were asked which of my writings pleased me the most in its
moral—served the best to inspire the younger reader with a generous
emotion and a guiding principle—was the one best calculated to fit
us for the world, by raising us above its trials—and the one by which
I would most desire my own heart and my own faith to be judged—I
would answer—‘ The Disowned.’”’—Author’s Preface.
SAYINGS AND DOINGS.
BY THEODORE HOOK, ESQ.
FIRST SERIES.
Comprising Danvers, The Friend of the Family, Merton, &c.
‘*T have for many years watched the world, and have set down all
that I have seen; and out of this collection of materials, I have
thrown together a few historic illustrations of quaint sayings, the
truth and sagacity of which the characters introduced by me have
unconsciously exemplified in their lives and conduct; and which I
have the small merit of bringing to bear, after long observation, upon
the axioms affixed to each tale. In short, I have thought it a curious
matter of speculation to compare the doings of the moderns with the
sayings of the ancients; and therefore submit to the public a few
‘wise saws’ illustrated by ‘ modern instances.’ ””—Author’s Preface.
Sir Walter Scott was a prophecier of things past—he wears the
palm of legendary lore alone—to him the past is every thing, the
present nothing. Mr. Hook, on the contrary, is a man of the present
world—he writes down what he has actually seen, and puts it into
print. The sketches are full of the ‘ Doings’ of real life, and his
characters are real characters,drawn with a fidelity seldom witnessed
in works of this nature.’’
‘Skimming on the surface of living manners, and pourtraying
fashionable follies and eccentricities, this production combines with
these fleeting materials such an acute perception of general cha-
racter, and such a lively method of inculcating profound truths, that
were there six, instead of three, volumes, the reader would rise
from the perusal of the last with a relish as keenas accompanied him
through the first. Itis said, we know not how truly, that many of the
characters, aud the circumstances connected with them, are drawn
from real life, and we have even beard parties named as the originals,
Be this as it may, however, ‘ Sayings and Doings’ is a work which
betrays the hand of no ordinary writer. The satire, though always
playful, is keen, and though essentially dramatic in its structure, the
narrative portion of it is replete with deep and affecting interest.”—
Observer.
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
SAYINGS AND DOINGS.
SECOND SERIES.
Comprising The Sutherlands, The Man of many Friends,
Doubts and Fears, and Passion and Principle.
“This is a book abounding in pleasant scenes, good sayings, and
witty dialogues. The eye of a keen playful wit and satirist has been
upon the world in a vast variety of its spheres of action and affect-
ation, and here we have ‘ the harvest of that unquiet eye.’ ”—Black-
wood’s Magazine.
«‘* Sayings and Doings’ is a work of more than ordinary merit,
comprising admirable portraits of human character with tales of real
or fictitious life.’—Literary Chronicle.
SAYINGS AND DOINGS.
THIRD SERIES.
Comprising Cousin William, and Gervase Skinner.
‘¢ These tales partake of the merits of the two former series, while
they excel them in vivacity, truth, and copiousness ofcharacter. In
the facility with which Mr. Hook sketches personal peculiarities, he
is unrivalled: the readiness with which he falls into all the little
niceties and familiarities which mark the tone of society, is equally
striking. The little appearance of labour in his writings—the singular
warmth and unstudied vigour of his sentences, complete the effect,
and make his works the most lively, and, at the same time, the truest
pictures of life we have yet met with among late writers.”—Altlas.
TREMAINE;
OR
THE MAN OF REFINEMENT.
BY R. P. WARD, ESQ.
“ We feel assured that no fastidious person who is at all awake to
his own defects, can read ‘Tremaine’ without being persuaded that
it affords most useful and practical lessons of conduct. Our youth
look to the poetry, and not to the reality, of life; and it is the object
of this book to show that the individual who adopts such an idea mars
his own happiness, as much as he fails in his duty towards the com-
munity. It is the object of this novel to shuw that no duty or inno-
cent occupation which occupies the rest of the world is to be rejected
with contempt ; that society, if worthy in other respects, is not to be
shunned because it is not super-eminently refined; and that even
the sweets of literature are to be sipped rather than swallowed ina
draught.”—Quarterly Review.
“ Mr. Ward’s writings are of a higher purpose and value than to be
read and forthwith dismissed ; they are of the kind to be stored in
private libraries, and recurred to from time to time, as a atill fresh
solace and delight.”—Sun.
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
FRANK MILDMAY;
OR
THE NAVAL OFFICER.
mee GAPLATN MARRYAT:
The author of ‘ Frank Mildmay,’ ‘ Peter Simple,’ and ‘ Jacob Faith-
ful’ stands alone amongst the writers of his century.”’—Spectator.
5
‘* Our naval officer sketches his life and adventures almost with the
naiveté and caudour of Rousseau in his ‘ Confessions ;’ but his adven-
tures are infinitely more numerous and diversified. Commencing with
his boyish days, and his midshipméen’s berth, we are carried through
calm and hurricane, in all quarters of the globe; we are mixed in
fights, from the adventurous and desperate boarding expedition, to
the scientific battle of fleets, and from the action purely naval, to the
mixed service in which the sailor becomes amphibious, defending forts
as he would a maintop, and swimming off, when beaten, to his ship,
as he would descend from a tottering mast by a haul-yard or backstay.
We shall not be surprised if this production of Captain Marryat be-
comes even more popular than his ‘Jacob Faithful,’ or his ‘ Peter
Simple ;’ for it ought to be the future vade-mecum of every midship-
man on his entering the service.”—.Worning Post.
BRAMBLETYE HOUSE;
OR
CAVALIERS AND ROUNDHEADS.
BY HORACE SMITH, ESQ.
“The best of all the Novels of Horace Smith.’’—Adlas.
« A work which may justly claim to rank with the choicest produc-
tions of the great literary ‘ Wizard of the North.’”—Hull Packet.
**The characters (like Sir Walter Scott’s) from the highest to the
lowest, have individuality. Their qualities, manners, and forms, are
distinctive and real. Constantia Beverning may be placed in com-
petition with the Rebecca of ‘ Ivanhoe.’ ”»—Scotsman.
GRANBY.
BY T. H. LISTER, ESQ.
_“* © Granby’ will always be read with pleasure. Its pictures of life are
interesting without being forced; and, as a narrative, it is replete
with incident.”—Atias.
“ This tale of fashionable life is one of the best and most successful
ofits kind. Itis deservedly admired for the unexaggerated vivacity
of its portraits and the spirit of its descriptions.” —Swz.
“The great success of this novel is owing chiefly to its very easy
and natural pictures of manners, as they really exist among the upper
classes ; to the de-cription of new characters, judiciously drawn and
faithfully preserved, and to the introduction of striking and well-
managed incidents.”—dinburgh Review.
COLBURN’S STANDARD NOVELISTS.
O’DONNEL ;
A NATIONAL IRISH TALE.
BY LADY MORGAN.
‘© ¢Q’Donnel,’ one of the best works in our language. For mas-
culine vigour, originality of thought, and penetration, Lady Morgan
stands first on the list of female writers.”—Morning Chronicle.
“ Assuredly the public benefit by the new fashion of cheap reprints.
Here is ‘O’Donnel,’ one of the cleverest works of a clever writer,
offered in an elegant volume, with Portrait and Preface, for Six SHIL-
LINGS,.”’—Atheneum.
FLORENCE MACARTHY.
BY THE AUTHORESS OF «' O7DONNEL.”
_** Florence Macarthy’ contains sketches of Irish characters, poli-
tical and national, some of which are as remarkable for their fidelity
as personal portraits, as the others are striking from their charac.
teristic truth. This [rish picture gallery embraces both the aristo-
cracy and democracy of the country—the former painted with the
pencil of an artist, who has long had opportunities of observation, as
well as the skill to delineate ; and the groups of the lower class are
drawn with the force and freedom of Miss Edgeworth, and with more
than her brilliancy and accuracy.”—Morning Chroreicle.
RICHELIEU;
A TALE OF FRANCE.
BY G. P. R. JAMES, ESQ.
“ This new and striking story of the French tourt commences with
the last year of the reign, as it may be termed, of the Cardinal de
Richelieu, who governed not only Louis XIII., but all France, with a
despotic and resistless sway. Among the numerous characters ifitro-
duced are the king ; his consort, Anne of Austria; her majesty’s dame
@honneur, Clara de Hauteford ; the Duc d’Orleans ; the cardinal’s
great friend and coadjutor, Chavigni; Cing-Mars; de Thou, &c. The
ostensible hero is the Count de Blenau, chamberlain to the queen};
the heroine Mademoiselle de Beaumont.”— Morning Journal.
“We congratulate Mr. James no less on the judgment which has
chosen the subject, than on the talent which has developed it. The
eventful days of Richelieu are an admirable period, quite untrodden
ground, and abounding in events of every species of the picturesque,
the terrible, the mysterious, and the romantic.” — Literary Gazette.
On the 1st of October will appear,
ZILLAH;
A TALE OF THE HOLY CITY.
BY THE AUTHOR OF “ BRAMBLETYE HOUSE,” &c,
~
rs
7 , » ¢
ee ; fad i) ae L *
TU iw
ay wy se
; mo ; aM Lay
yi i ‘ ~
r P ‘ Syl
} ' %
i 1
' ASAP
i ita
7 >» . :
‘ {
is
e ee a “ Anke ra ching
AS YN ED co a
» eS . ey
LAM
nm
7 ot
ri,
ty
y
Reel:
Ma
ve
to)
ke
; Wes 4p ¥. ine
bapa th Me K
Fh ATO meme ee ee One 8h ge key be
Wiehe Soh W iar av Wy, eke H
‘ ‘ 4 BWSR Ts riot Meke bey
i , fies ? , iS Lota! UMS Bot dee Te eae bd
i ie ihe te if eae We tale I) = 5 :
Aa He winsbellty oral Aig) FA
ra
indatiate RP ad Rony UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA ay
| rit ges bear : 1 dia shiny ere Wd Tura wed
a Uluru Wenieaal totality iit te bey net aa by
ied i eA ah rn erie ie ele ' ui
y f Ebraeh de Pe ewe Wi her : ns I ri ‘
: i pa Pano Ha alia As rf Ae CSB an ie ye bot .
‘ ‘ nts Srhieaty tt i nas gt 4 { ita rt if Pf ,
en hetnatetey “We getty |
eee ete yh “4! Ni Pe Ai tas AAS Aai sal west nnn ae en ua
ia ‘Dts 4 a4 49 he AS ir ib
INTL UH aS eer Cae RE a 3 0112 124959872 |
rithe Hbcaes aban: ihe Waleag eae Latta Gt The iar ies eWeek deh ae Ne hi SE ot : Aah
if Lt setae Waetecit ht , Sanit baie Mi F
Beer Sriey
eerieedurei teh Ue
. ‘ . May RAEN Otic ‘
shrine Ai wth tiny Wy Ney Y Protea REN a rane A ul irGrle feat i eit C
Hey a ; A oY fan $i i ibebs heli t
4 i patty ; ue ‘ uit x ' Ph helt cha 2 ‘f Y Pea gre ibads by De hede |
eat ai i : H gets, Wi ik ‘vk hi tet WEtRe Maha Genk HEN
shed n ; 4 Ths hohe te Visas if Phd :
ides rita lh i fit ally ‘i ir i i sae i Hird i 4 in eau ae Hf heh HN ie AGaics Hy |
\ Ney iY t arin J ui i i ; ( , )
hte ‘ i | ie Mi ,
ee Or i My yt
cre / lied SUE ti MG f PA aN is nis Wa Maid (ein) aC
We a a r i ;
eaenten aie +h) wins fice wees Betis “4 Beth bat Weed i
Daan Hb pata eal PASI OK ARH aa PAPER Sa,
eae eth vient iritstiguh Mitts a een eH ai Lanreg ie OA Serer bent eke: bet
i ; ony. " a as Ae \ ‘ 4 t ! |
‘ eae OT 4 y
feu Mi fad | a |
4 : \
{! : } ; ; Pol he peas PWT U Git Ue ety A hel Ai Bal 25
aa ede hh vaetan ata At fits Oe tet Ph Welie boyd rN Cubes retea ser 4 wre eb
iil Hi ish ays yt i fy ine : io ane EWAN OMEN AG OE MELA kt bet Mare eta]
(hi ity toaatas ath PN hah A Se ne dhe pha han ; DMN CM Lew sittet #2 We aj arbee Peel
at ‘tah q th ¢ 7 4 ¥ : 4 i
ile \ ahi 1 nA ; j
i WHERE Harta y(t (4 i ny WM iietarivh Weighted bya Weta it fea
sea vata want PonbcaFted TPDHAaA L bebaeegekta i thesty dt Hata aly pgs yt ter eoeeunai La
eh AFD Eh Mini : Pray eee ; ! jie ; ¥ bce 4 Waa ) ‘
deuie anit iY 1 i TER hs LW SE fe Neh OME MCACMTH Ke ok "
v s DEO Ue t BEB Ole tabs pee Wiis L ek ae Pee ea
ia | Pa BADER PEW, Othe Ui erie at
i Sell Ah gited Wy Nei witanuniits aie oath aa eboney eA Hh uit a j
eal , f 1
biieurty : \ bei aed ( 4
Ha Eat Ne Ole Cu : Nae eaten
¢ ; hi IR es id PUG MEAG The Mais Wantage ie SEEN CTT NRE Ta TW er ea ae Oe PE
: saan } passa n i We ra PRE RSP NE Git Oe NM e dicts C Ged trl stink lb tthe bie RM kad dt
its) Nhs ta beer nett PUM Neer tip Wau Hea be ATEN BAA Boat Grutiacne it Dita eR ee
: sie tut tinea ental CHAN i
atl cf
tt ei ibe Hh ie 4 ‘ Vel ! : , FAA A \ a i i
hl Nit iar 7 Vedtie ie ; ; Bing j TER AULUEUE f ; Ms wi {
aiid } a it hte : f A ( : hase, Seg i! eA be ae | UA rei Hea ti }
der: De gue “ 4 (3 paeheate tik ais shee hell tf * ost / “i mi wt
i ROUND ie Sar eer eh pera Br Hatt
of AA (Sai Rauete Ueheut Waki Ae Monte 5 )
tae tidy ' Wee Mig tt i ( b
s i '
we !
td
Mi \
Ait dedeth Ant i Bf i ' {|
vl Neen HeLa a | Biri: ik 4: ‘
if Aa f i i
{ ‘ eA R pie Ui 1 ire ‘ ;
ie ’ 4 it Whi haa Warton ya:
iat i Ta A Ai Web § i Ml ee Yih : y
: a ie i vie ff AA rhe i oa te ! italy i a fe a; 4
fee bch, Beal cle Ua ie ra eat
H i : Lids v le tt { ah i \
4 “| a
‘ }
(
iis "t
y
\
1 ; ae LEM hat ft: ; Het F tJ 4 tA Git ht ha
ch : ded i bo ay \ : pee a Ha BUN (es Oa q \ i is i
lige eBid Bede [eas WAC ie hy pe 3 TURAL Ce MT BB aia eh (
raving a , Mee WA! Ah de i » is) i t rattan ODER he Mel Meat Hef Het ge hh H ih AY ' ‘i
hy } Hg Siok re 4 oi ts ” fy Webi ed TAN Aan in eae ee bp) hie
; Rinna 4 i TMP Pha Ce 1 Ne Hobie i eon a fe
Ah way Fura SY AeA y wae Bia : ti Mt Matt MEAN E WERT GRC ee a Ble tnt
ied Wedd : aevises @ Ayiaay
' i f bbe ee hehe ir ; V4 tl al hows
COA ea Wa Rm ti Td hr er Pee a F ne
i Re A Ia as ee Ta Ce tak ase re ey ij
SRC as bapa ine aR OO ee bee Bae we pcb ou
er CGE Ta Pa peytes a et Bele Bow ae ue ad if,
: Poe enact We kin tem seat t hess one
(hs Sey e tat EW Se Gea Ri keg ie ite!
che Se Tn ti Ons ahah a r hy
Vy ha NA ep i ey Vane «4
Tey be Gal ae Fite fall ye et aes
Why TE hea ‘!
eG Lr WYP W ei ackeb es )
dit fe ina wt HT LY eee -
Cs a Cr aT f
i tt ft ; :
Ttiventel K Keir Wied 6B lds iy F wit
“Wi GW hey | fh
bo bead ‘ ‘ he
PHEW PA ery SET aan veh
<' o at je fh Pl ie | , i}
f eH hte Oe eile ey er ee rl f
i Ww edhe bg it
Wu bub fhe La (4 a i ,
eG Ue ear ee Pa ie et |
LA Rn at On 5
i De Sea test han eal (
f hey pata t
wa fh RA it Ou bah
Hebei bd Ue ea nl ‘ y hays
PAP AAALAC RNA AU fe a i ‘
TAG RU RRR WS tea he tea we fem leat ur
yey RR ae oe { i at ee VO Mey
ee mouponnttedale f#iuwweady
; ‘atid! 4 few (rh ‘
i ¥ i , uta: \
{ 6 4 Wy Dp f ea naa
aT Fri Alias Hee nt hp ie ene waite ee uy
i tt i tf he fei fie e \
« fw AS ba We Wa LY ied peat: 108 § Titi e wth
2 WY fete i OK deh beet " ‘ i ,
A A LYS CEL AD GPU :
eta cutattatahite he CUPS Chad kih eh ue ee
Pile tatty aA. ae ate PA Aa Che é .
4 AOU HAM CHA i GE MRE i id
Bie & phew Ca Oe ths a er tippy eS 4
POL One a aL ‘ {
Bee ACARI Rone, i) 4 ; PRP Ve
ened we ee feged t : } ih
CH He Ls hat: a Agh
wu a4 Wai ; ; te haem ve
Wy Ve Dew
; Pa et Watt ited he erik et ;
fetedrae$ f ) i ve fe Hat Riding i ped ' PW bey hele hh ys
a eh oy 4 X i} Aes Bi, GAC rf AR fi WH Re Pitty hen aa yl ie
i ty Me i { ‘ i Sofi EN 6 Wit
slate ae é fie : i ened Ah Me be he AY 4 EN, UA, Oey OBEN Y } ‘din j wer AA CHO WRN Tea
OR aaa bra La § i Eni WARY axis, ANA Pa WC
As cr a 45 > Peat roles } r 4 J i Die a CO Ga a yur :
Ad el ara pd ns ed: ai i ht nhl 8 i fe ‘ Mie ey AY al au aN
Me y Aeeti wen he a Ki hen ah! riehd Pia tearh Bs age edn Mike GENT eit ; ty
s j : ni ii
Wheitte Ne Mi { $ Ay Hay Paw ben Mae He Wyss hit U Wed dked
Pal} : ' FH OE THe MU MER hon WL BAH Nl bk Wy ed fit y
f iy j Ewe OURUH YD he '
EOL nats tia i ay ‘ ‘ id
beker ay ‘ f i “
fe ele G8 Fo nad RE A e Wi) wat .
‘ rs fe ek a kt tag we
: j pin ph pe ii HO CHR RY Wow ies bk i ‘ i} LA
ta A a A ‘ HO Wb bs Ow slr PATE WNW Wie ie FU MM hp bed aA hen Be be BAH Kea ge akties a!
Debs We Whe Be Wo oh HB: Shei tie RE us JH WWE be hips PA AL a 2 VPA HD Hw! ee 1
Wy ritehee ora Raney yh 0b NN Pe SHAAN
pithes pie MIEN. Heaticaut wre eha Muy ie ite Matat '
‘ } 1 deb Mee Oe q ‘ ' ;
AANA MH evened he Fvwen wdraee Oh A Ar AL i
re i : Fry nth ; ‘ne Pee bE Dee AB HME Ta cea i 9
Pree eed Hie: ¥ be be ne Vehee ee eaten FA Ret AOL EA oe 6H h-¢
q h i \ mn ‘
He ie eb WeNatuew be Oo BAEC HPA NT tte hd AUR AH a L ‘
Onkcba a ihe cdl