Second and Third were not by the same author as the First. Thus he holds that the three plays, as we have them, were the work of three several authors, Shakespeare being responsible only for the above-mentioned alterations and additions; and that, on the strength of these, Heminge and Condell took the strange liberty of including all three of the plays in their edition, thus setting them forth to the world as Shakespeare's genuine productions, the Second and Third, because he had somewhat enlarged and improved them, and the First, as being a "necessary introduction" to the other two.

So far as regards the First Part, Malone's position and arguments were probably discussed enough in our Introduction to that play. His only reason, apparently, for supposing three several authors is precisely the same as one of his main reasons for supposing two. The argument is so clear, brief, and conclusive, that we can well afford room to state it, even though the statement involve something of repetition. In the First Part, Act iii. sc. 4, King Henry says, "I do remember how my father said." But in one of the added lines of the Second Part, Act iv. sc. 9, the same Henry says, "But I was made a king at nine months old." Now, as Shakespeare undoubtedly wrote the additions to the Second Part, it is clear that he knew the king was not of an age, at his father's death, to remember any thing said by him: which concludes at once that Shakespeare could not have written the First Part. Again; in one of the original lines of the Third Part, Act i. sc. 1, the king says, "When I was crown'd I was but nine months old:" from which it comes equally clear and conclusive, that the originals of the Second and Third Parts could not have been written by the author of the First. Thus far, however, we have but two authors proved in the three plays; it not appearing but that Shakespeare may have written both the originals and the additions of the Second and Third Parts. But the same principle, in another instance, will soon nick him out of all but those additions. In an original passage of the Third Part, Act iii. sc. 2, King Edward, speaking of the Lady Elizabeth Grey, says to Clarence and Gloster:

"This lady's husband here, Sir Richard Grey,
At the battle of St. Albans did lose his life:
His lands then were seiz'd on by the conqueror.
Her suit is now to repossess those lands;
And sith in quarrel of the house of York
The noble gentleman did lose his life,
In honor we cannot deny her suit."

In King Richard III, Act i. sc. 3, Gloster says to the same
Elizabeth:

"In all which time, you and your husband Grey
Were factious for the house of Lancaster;-
And, Rivers, so were you:-was not your husband
In Margaret's battle at St. Albans slain?"

Now, as nobody doubts that Shakespeare was the author of King Richard III, it follows clearly and conclusively that he could not have written the originals of the plays in question. Thus we have three several authors fully proved in case of Henry VI; one for the First Part, another for the originals, and a third for the additions, of the Second and Third.

We have been thus particular in stating this argument, because it is by far the strongest that has been alleged on that side from the internal evidence. And Malone himself lays great stress upon it: referring to such instances as we have quoted, he says, "Passages, discordant in matters of fact from his other plays are proved by this discordancy not to have been composed by him; and these discordant passages, being found in the original quarto plays, prove that those pieces were composed by another writer." Perhaps enough was said by way of answer to this point in our Introduction to the First Part. Two discrepancies of the same kind were there adduced, from which, however, nobody thinks of inferring any such diversity of authorship. It will not take long to add two more. In The First Part of Henry IV, Act i. sc. 3, the king speaks of "the foolish Mortimer" as Hotspur's "brother-in-law," and a little after in the same scenes Hotspur boils over thus:

"And when I urg'd the ransom once again
Of my wife's brother, then his cheek look'd pale,
And on my face he turn'd an eye of death,
Trembling even at the name of Mortimer.”

And again, the same speaker: "Did King Richard, then, proclaim my brother Edmund Mortimer heir to the crown?" In Act iii. sc. 1, however, of the same play, we have Mortimer referring thus to Hotspur's wife: "Good father, tell her, that she and my aunt Percy shall follow in your conduct speedily." Again; in the Third Part of Henry V, Act i. sc. 1, the king says to York,

"What title hast thou, traitor, to the crown?
Thy father was, as thou art, duke of York;"

as if York's title had come to him by inheritance. And yet, a few lines before, Exeter, speaking of the present king to York, says, "He made thee duke of York;" as if the title had been conferred on him by express grant from the king, which was indeed the case. It will be worth the while to add, that both of these passages are in the original form of the Third Part. And as the matter is rightly set forth in the First Part, one of the passages might be quoted to prove that the two plays were, and the other, that they were not, by the same author. Divers other instances more or less in point might easily be adduced; and indeed there are so many discrepancies of this kind in Shakespeare's undoubted plays, that one may well be surprised to find an editor urging them for such a purpose. Besides, even according to Malone's showing, one of the passages thus referred to, that touching the Lady Elizabeth, was considerably altered by Shakespeare. And if the Poet had been so careful to avoid such discrepancies, as Malone's argument supposes, it does not well appear why in altering the verse he did not correct the facts.

:

Finally, one more instance of similar discrepancy may as well be referred to, as, on Malone's principle, it will prove that the Second and Third Parts in the quarto form must have been by different authors; so that we shall have four authors in the case, one for each of the three parts in their original state, and a fourth for the latter two in so far as the folio differs from the quartos.

Of the other points in Malone's argument from the internal evidence, the only ones worth noticing may be quickly despatched, as they call for little if any thing more than a flat denial. The first is, that in his undoubted plays we often find Shakespeare reproducing the same thoughts in other, yet resembling, forms of expression; and that the quarto copies of the Second and Third Parts have not the usual number of thoughts and expressions resembling those to be met with in his other plays, while the folio additions are proportionably much more frequent in such resemblances. Now, to affirm the reverse of this, were probably nearer the truth. As Malone's method of reasoning was so highly figurative, Knight has here brought the power of figures to bear, and shown that in the original form of the two plays there are no less than fourteen such resemblances; which is a greater number, proportionably, than it will be easy to find in the additions.

The second of the points in question is, that the Shakespearian peculiarities of thought and speech occur more frequently in the added portions. Which, even if it were true, would prove nothing to the purpose, the additions having of course been written some time after the originals, and when the author had grown and ripened more out of the common into his individual style of thought and speech. Moreover, this argument would make with at least equal force that Shakespeare did not, though no one questions that he did, write the originals of his Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet; it being certain that what was afterwards added to those plays in the revisal is proportionably much richer in Shakespearian peculiarity. But, in the plays under consideration, this is not true, as any one that has an eye for such things may be amply certified by the specimens given in our notes. The cause of the matter's being otherwise in this case may be, that the revising took place at a less interval from the first writing, before the author's style had undergone much change, and when his power was not enough greater to make up for the less inspiration that would naturally attend a revisal.

Nor is Malone a whit stronger in his arguing of the question from external evidence. In the first place, he urges the fact that Shakespeare's name was not mentioned in the entry of the Second Part at the Stationers', March 12, 1594, nor in the title-pages of the first two editions. But this, as we have repeatedly seen, was a common practice. For example, King Richard II was entered at the Stationers', August 29, 1597, and published the same year; The First Part of Henry IV was entered, February 25, 1598, and published that year; also, King Richard III was entered, October 20, 1597, and published that year; in every one of which cases there was no mention of the author's name. Again, he alleges the circumstance that in the title of the quarto the Third Part is said to have been acted by the earl of Pembroke's servants, a company to which Shakespeare never belonged. Which point we may safely leave where it was left in our Introduction to the First Part. Another circumstance urged is, that in the title-page of Pavier's quarto the plays are said to have been "newly corrected and enlarged by William Shakespeare," as if this inferred that Shakespeare did not write them; whereas the "By William Shakespeare" evidently refers no less to the writing than to the correcting and enlarging.

There is, however, one piece of external evidence which must be allowed to carry some weight. We have seen that Malone's argument from the discrepancies of statement would, if admitted, necessarily conclude four authors in the case, one for each of the three parts as first written, and a fourth for the additions of the folio. And in fact Malone himself supposes four, and the forthcoming item

•

1