Kitabı oku: «A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare», sayfa 11

1613

Henry VIII. as we have it is not the play that was in action at the Globe when that theatre was burned on Tuesday, 29th June 1613. Howes (Stow, Chronicles, p. 1003) says, "By negligent discharging of a peal of ordnance, close to the South side thereof the Thatch took fire, and the wind suddenly disperst the flame round about, and in a very short space the whole building was quite consumed and no man hurt; the house being filled with people, to behold the play, viz., of Henry the Eight." A letter from Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, 30th June 1613, and another from John Chamberlain to Sir Ralph Winwood, 8th July 1613 (Winwood's Memorials, iii. 469), give similar accounts. Sir Henry Wotton (Reliquiæ, p. 475), in a letter of 2d July 1613, says it was at "a new play acted by the King's players at the Bankside, called All is True, representing some principal pieces of the reign of Henry the Eighth." The title "All is True" is clearly alluded to in the Prologue, ll. 9, 18, 21; but the same Prologue shows that the extant play was performed as a new one at Blackfriars, for the price of entrance, a "shilling," l. 12, and the address to "the first and happiest hearers of the town," l. 24, are only applicable to the "private house" in Blackfriars; the entrance to the Globe was twopence, and the audience at this "public house" of a much lower class. This play is chiefly by Fletcher and Massinger, Shakespeare's share in it being only i. 2; ii. 3; ii. 4; while Massinger wrote i. 1; iii. 2. 1-193; v. 1. It was not, however, written by these authors in conjunction. Shakespeare appears to have left it unfinished; his part is more like The Winter's Tale than any other play, and was probably written just before that comedy in 1609, during the prevalence of the plague. I have before noted the disturbing effect of these plague times, with the concomitant closing of the theatres, &c., on Shakespeare's regular habits of composition. This play is founded on Holinshed's Chronicle and Fox's Christian Martyrs (1563). It is worth noting that its success called forth new editions of S. Rowley's When you see me you know me, and the Lord Cromwell of W. S. in this year; both plays on Henry the Eighth's times. On the authorship question see Mr. Spedding's Essay in The Gentleman's Magazine, August 1850, Mr. Boyle's Essay and my own letter in the Athenæum. That the 1613 play (probably finished by Fletcher, and destroyed in great part in the Globe fire) was not that now extant is certain, for in a contemporary ballad on the burning of the Globe we are told that the "riprobates prayed for the fool," and there is no fool in Henry VIII. The extant play was produced by Fletcher and Massinger in 1617.

1625

The Two Noble Kinsmen was published in 1634, as written by Fletcher and Shakespeare. There is no other evidence that Shakespeare had any hand in it, except the opinions of Lamb, Coleridge, Spalding, Dyce, &c. These, on analysis, simply reiterate the old argument, "It is too good for any one else." Hazlitt and Hallam held, notwithstanding, the opposite opinion. I have myself shown in The Literary World, 10th February 1883 (Boston), that the play was first acted in 1625. It was printed from a playhouse MS., with stage directions, such as i. 3: "2 Hearses ready with Palamon and Arcite; the 3 Queens. Theseus and his Lords ready;" and in iii. 5: "Knock for Schoole." But in iv. 2, we find an actor named Curtis taking the part of Messenger. No actor of that name is known except Curtis Greville, who joined the King's men between 1622, when he belonged to the Palsgrave's, and October 1626, when he performed in Massinger's Roman Actor. Moreover, the Prologue tells us this was a new play performed in a time of losses, and in anticipation of leaving London. The company did leave London in 1624, after their trouble in August about Middleton's Game of Chess. On this occasion they travelled in the north, and performed at Skipton three times for £3; and again, in July 1625 they travelled, on account of the plague in London; where they ceased to perform in May, when the deaths from that disease exceeded forty per week. Greville probably joined the King's men on the breaking up of the Palsgrave's, of whom the last notice dates 3d November 1624. This gives Easter 1625 as the likeliest date for the play. But whether in 1624 or 1625 (and it must be one of these years) it was first acted, the advocates of Shakespeare's part-authorship are now reduced to the hypothesis that a play begun by Shakespeare was left unnoticed for some dozen years, although a similarly unfinished play had been finished and acted twelve seasons before, and a collected edition of Shakespeare's works had been issued in the interim, in which had been included every available portion of his writings.¹⁴ I cannot believe this; nor can I think that if Shakespeare were really concerned in this play it would have been put forth in 1625 with so modest a Prologue. This might have suited while he lived, but nine years after his death, and two years after his collected works had been published, it is incredible. With the highest respect then for the eminent æsthetic critics who hold that Shakespeare did write part of this play, I must withdraw my adhesion, and state my present opinion that there is nothing in it above the reach of Massinger and Fletcher, but that some things in it (ii. 1a; iv. 3) are unworthy of either, and more likely to be by some inferior hand, W. Rowley for instance. The popular instinct has always been on this side; editions containing this play have not been sought after; and had it not been known not to have been Shakespeare's, it would surely have been gathered up with the W. S. plays in the Folio of 1663.

SECTION V.
ON THE MARLOWE GROUP OF PLAYS

1 Henry VI. was acted as a new play at the Rose by Lord Strange's men 3d March 1592. It is evidently written by several hands. No successful attempt has yet been made to discriminate these; yet it will be found that on this discrimination depends the elucidation of so many difficult circumstances of Shakespeare's early career, that no apology is required for giving to this play an amount of consideration which it would not deserve on account of its intrinsic merits. It is convenient to commence our investigation by a brief summary of the historical parts contained in the play.

• A 1422, August 31. Henry VI. succeeded to the throne at "nine months old."

• A 1422, November 7. Henry V. was buried at Westminster (i. 1).

• A 1425. Gloster was refused admission to the Tower (i. 3).

• A 1425, January 19. The Earl of March died at Trim, leaving Richard Plantagenet his heir. [This Edmund Mortimer was not imprisoned in the Tower, as in the play; but his uncle, Sir John Mortimer, was so, who was executed shortly before.] (ii. 5.)

• A 1426, March. A Parliament was held at Leicester (iii. 1).

• B 1427 September to 1428 May. Orleans was besieged (i. 2, 4, 5, 6; ii. 1, 2, 3).

• A 1429. The battle of Patay [called Poitiers, iv. 1. 19] at which Fastolfe [called Falstaff in the play] fled, and Talbot was taken (i. 1. 103-140; compare iii. 2. 103-108).

• A 1429. Charles was crowned at Rheims (i. 1. 92).

• A 1429. The French towns revolted (i. 1. 60). For Paris mentioned among them compare v. 2. 2.

• E 1430, May. Joan of Arc was taken, and (1431, May) burned (v. 3. 1-44; v. 4. 1-93).

• B 1430, December. Henry VI. was crowned at Paris (iii. 4; iv. 1).

• C 1435, September. Bedford died at Paris (iii. 2), and Burgundy made peace with France (iii. 3).

• E 1436. Paris submitted to Charles (v. 2. 2).

• E 1443. The match between Henry and Margaret was arranged (v. 3. 45-195; v. 5).

• E 1443. A truce was made for eighteen months (v. 4. 94-175).

• D 1452. Talbot and his son were killed in battle (iv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

The capital letters prefixed to these dates will enable us to follow readily the arrangement of these events in the play. The A. group, comprising i. 1. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, is manifestly by one writer. The time limits of his scenes are 1422 and 1426: the first scene contains allusions to events of a subsequent date, thrust in for dramatic effect without regard either to historical accuracy or the internal consistency of the play. Specially the battle of Patay, the crowning of Charles, and the revolt of the French towns may be noted. It is hardly requisite to do more than read the opening speech to see that the author of these scenes was Marlowe. It may be noticed, however, that in these scenes, and in these only, we find Gloster (Gloucester elsewhere), Reynold (Reignier or Reigneir elsewhere), and Roän (monosyllabic elsewhere). All these scenes are laid in London.

The B. group, i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, ii. 1. 2. 3, iii. 4, iv. 1., contains only events that happened between 1427 and 1430, the scene being laid at Orleans, Auvergne, or Paris. The bit of the battle of Patay iii. 2. 103-108, thrust into the midst of scenes at Rouen in 1435, would probably belong to this group. It seems to be a preparation for iv. 1, stuck for dramatic purposes in a position historically most incongruous. The author of these scenes is not easy to identify: his work is rather colourless, yet minor coincidences with the known work of Robert Greene and Thomas Kyd point to one of them as the writer. In this group only we find the spellings: Joane de Puzel (Pucelle elsewhere), Reigneir (occasionally also Reignier), and Gloucester (Gloster elsewhere, except in one instance, where Glocester is probably a misprint). There can be no doubt that these scenes are all by one author, and that not the writer of group A., but very far inferior.

Group C., iii. 2. 3, is very like Group B. in general handling, but has some marked characteristics: here, and here only, we find Burgonie (Burgundy or Burgundie elsewhere) and Roan monosyllabic; Pucelle (Puzel in Group B.) and Joane (Jone in Group D.) also differentiate it from these groups. The time is 1435, place Rouen. I conjecture the author to have been George Peele.

Group D. v. 2-5 is made up of the Joan of Arc story of 1430-1 and the Margaret match of 1443. This group has Gloucester invariably (Gloster in Group A.), Jone (Joane in B., C.), Reignier (never Reigneir, as B.) The author of these scenes is without doubt Thomas Lodge. His versification is unmistakable, and the phrase "cooling card" occurs in Marius and Sylla, the older plays of John and Leir (both times in parts by Lodge). It has not been traced in Greene, Peele, or Marlowe.

Before considering Group E., iv. 2-7, which is concerned only with Talbot's last fight near Bourdeaux in 1452, I would draw attention to the fact that it is clear that this episode did not form part of the original play: it is merely connected with it by the two lines, v. 2. 16, 17, which may have been inserted for that purpose; belongs chronologically to the next play, and is so different from, as well as so superior to, its surroundings, that in 1876 I suggested that Shakespeare might have written it. Mr. Swinburne has since sanctioned this opinion by adopting it. This, however, is not evidence; what follows is. The scenes in the Folio are not divided in Acts i., ii.; in the other Acts they are. Acts iii. and iv. 1 coincide with the modern division; but v. 1 of the modern editors is iv. 2 in the Folio; v. 2. 3. 4, are iv. 3 in the Folio, and v. 5 in the Folio is the whole fifth Act. Here then is the play completed without iv. 2-7, which are not numbered at all. It is plain that they were written subsequently to the rest of the play and inserted at a revival. They had to be inserted in such a manner as not to break the connection between this play and 2 Henry VI., and were put in the most convenient place, regardless of historic sequence. I take it for granted that this play in its original shape was acted before 2 Henry VI., the commencement of which was evidently meant to fit on to the end of the preceding play. It is in accordance with the hypothesis here announced (that the play acted 3d March 1592 was new only in these Talbot scenes,) that we find Nash in his Piers Penniless (S. R. 8th August 1592) referring only to the Talbot scenes as new. "How it would have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to think that after he had lain two hundred year in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his bones embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at least." It was acted thirteen times at the Rose between March 3 and June 22, that is, at least once a week; was the most popular play of the season, and was probably still in action "about the city" or in the country during the time that the theatres were closed for the plague, from 22d June 1592 till January 1593, when it was again played at the Rose. It was, therefore, in action when Greene's celebrated address "to those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plays," was written. This address was published in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit after 2d September, when Greene died, and before 8th December, when Chettle's Kind-Hart's Dream was entered on S. R., and was probably written about June. It is addressed to Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele. Attempts have been made to show that Nash, not Lodge, was the second playwright of this trio, on the ground that Lodge was too old to be called "young Juvenal" or "sweet boy;" was absent from England; was not a satirist, and had foresworn writing for the theatre. The only important argument is that of Lodge's age. As this is important in other respects, I give here a table of the known birth dates, matriculations, B.A. and M.A. degrees, and first appearances as authors of the University men connected at that time with the stage: —

It will be seen from the above table that the degree of B.A. was usually taken at eighteen or nineteen; that Lodge and Greene were probably of about the same age; and if we may judge from Greene's slowness in obtaining his M.A. degree, that he was not speedy in fulfilling the earlier University requirements. Greene was probably the elder. At any rate, Lodge's age in 1592 was about thirty-three, surely not too old for one of about his own age to call "boy." He was a satirist before 1592. The Looking-glass for London is bitter enough for any "young Juvenal." On the other hand, Nash was certainly not the "biting satyrist that lastly with me [Greene] wrote a comedy." He had at the time of Greene's death written no comedy whatever: his first connection with the stage was his Summer's Last Will, acted at Archbishop Whitgift's, in November 1592. Lodge, we know, had written with Greene The Looking-glass, and there is strong internal evidence of his having a hand in George-a-Greene and James IV. Nor could the statement that "those puppits that speak from our mouths, those anticks garnished in our colours," had "all been beholding" to you, be with any consistency applied to Nash. Greene was evidently addressing the principal playwrights of the time, and, if my present view is a true one, he seized the opportunity of Shakespeare's having made "new additions" to a play in which all of them had been concerned to endeavour to create an ill-feeling between "the upstart crow beautified with our feathers" and those of the University men, who had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of writing for the stage, or nearly so. To have omitted Lodge in such an attempt would have been weak; to have included Nash, absurd. The effect of Greene's address was not what he desired. Peele had probably already been a coadjutor of Shakespeare, and Marlowe immediately, and no doubt Lodge later on, joined Shakespeare's company and wrote for them. In Greene's excuse must be considered how galling it must have been to a man in poverty and bad health to see a play which, while he was connected with it, had attracted little notice, suddenly raised to the highest success by the insertion of a few scenes written by a "Johannes factotum," a "Shakescene," who was "able to bombast out a blank verse" without being "Magister in artibus utriusque universitatis." Confirmations of my views as to this play will be found in the succeeding ones. The scene ii. 4 has long been recognised as so far superior to the rest of the play as to be probably due to the hand of Shakespeare at a later date, c. 1597-8.

2 Henry VI.– This play exists in two forms: one in the 1623 Folio, hereafter for convenience called F.; the other in Quarto, entered S. R. 12th March 1594, hereafter called Q. It was published in 1594 as The First part of the Contention betwixt the two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster. This Quarto version is a mangled and probably surreptitious copy of the original play, greatly abbreviated for acting. The play as first written will be hereafter called O. But F. and O. are not identical, although in many parts O. was more like F. than Q. It will be convenient to enter on the proof that O. was revised and altered before beginning the discussion of the authorship of either version, which is the most difficult, if not the most important, problem in Shakespearian criticism.

In the Folio of 1623 a list is given of the principal actors in Shakespeare's plays. The method in which this list is arranged has never been pointed out. It is chronological. The first ten names are those of the original men actors when the Chamberlain's company was instituted in 1594; the next five were added not later than 1603; the next five (excepting Field, who is inserted here from his early connection with Underwood and Ostler) c. 1610; the final six after 1617. By a comparison of this list with the names of the actors in The Seven Deadly Sins, originally acted before 1588, but the extant plot of which dates c. 1594, we shall get the evidence we want. The first seven names in the Folio list are (1.) W. Shakespeare, (2.) R. Burbadge, (3.) J. Hemmings, (4.) A. Phillips, (5.) W. Kempe, (6.) J. Pope, (7.) G. Bryan. The last five of these we know to have been members of Lord Strange's company in 1593. In the 7. D. S. we find neither Shakespeare nor Hemmings; but we do find (2.) R. Burbadge, (4.) Mr. Phillips, (5.) Will Foole, (6.) Mr. Pope, (7.) Mr. Bryan. It will be noticed that the prefix Mr. is confined to members of Lord Strange's company. Next in the Folio list come (8.) Henry Condell, (9.) William Sly, (10.) Richard Cowley. These appear in 7. D. S. as (8.) Harry, (9.) W. Sly, (10.) R. Cowley. At this point we are struck with the fact that Harry, Will, and Dick are names of three Cade conspirators in Q., and naturally try to see if the other names, Nick, Jack, Robin, Tom, and George, occur in 7. D. S. For it is certain that in very early plays up to the end of the sixteenth century it was frequently the case that the actors in plays are designated by their proper christian names. We do find (11.) Nick (i. e., Nicholas Tooley, a boy-actor in 1597, but a man c. 1610 in the Folio of 1623), (12.) John Duke, (13.) Robert Pallant, (14.) Thomas Goodall; but George, i. e., G. Peele, is not there discoverable. I may notice that Duke and Pallant, like Beeston, all three of whom left the Chamberlain's men for the Earl of Derby's in 1599, are excluded from the Folio list. On turning to another play, Sir Thomas More, c. 1596, the only other one that can give us similar information on the same scale, I find (8.) Harry, (13.) Robin, (14.) T. Goodall, (15.) Kit (i. e., Christopher Beeston), and two boys, (16.) Ned and (17.) a second Robin, i. e., Robert Gough, who occurs in the Folio list as a man c. 1617. In the 7. D. S. these latter correspond to (15.) Kitt, (16.) Ned, (17.) R. Go. In Sir T. More there are two other names of this kind, Giles and Rafe. Of Giles nothing more is known, but Rafe Raye is mentioned in Henslowe's Diary as a Chamberlain's man in 1594. A further examination of older plays leads to little additional information; but what is to be found all confirms the opinion that I had formed (as will be seen), on other grounds, that 2 Henry VI. was written for the Queen's men. Thus in plays known to have belonged to that company, I find in The Famous Victories, (12.) John, (13.) Robin, (14.) Tom, (16.) Ned and Lawrence; in Orlando, (14.) Tom and Rafe (Raye); in Friar Bacon, (10.) Dick, (14.) Tom; and in James IV., Andrew. There is no Andrew in our lists, but one occurs in Much Ado About Nothing, iv. 2, 1597-8, in place of Kempe: apparently a remnant of the older form of Love's Labour's Won before Kempe undertook the part. But our list of the 7. D. S. is not yet exhausted: (18.) Sander (a boy-player, but the same as Alexander Cooke, a man in 1603 in the Folio list), (19.) T. Belt, and (20.) Will (another boy), occur in The Taming of a Shrew, 1588. Of (21.) Vincent, nothing is known; but (22.) J. Sinkler acted with Gabriel (Spenser) and Humfrey (Jeffes) in 3 Henry VI., which belonged to Pembroke's company. Now as the last two, with Antony Jeffes and Robert Shaw, appear in Henslowe's Diary for the first time immediately after the partial breaking up of Pembroke's company and their juncture with the Admiral's in October 1597, it is morally certain that Sinkler had gone to the Chamberlain's, and Spenser Shaw and the two Jeffes to the Admiral's, at or before that date. I feel, therefore, justified in concluding that the 7. D. S. gives us a nearly complete list of the Chamberlain's actors, formed of Lord Strange's players as a nucleus; such of the Queen's men as joined them in 1591-2, when they obtained many Queen's plays (see p. 108), and such of Pembroke's as joined them in 1594, when they obtained Pembroke's plays (see p. 21). I have omitted only one name, and the absolute coincidence of nearly every one of the rest with the lists obtained from other sources is too remarkable to be the mere effect of accident: in fact, the chances are many millions to one against this being the case. The one name omitted is (23.) John Holland. This name occurs nowhere else to my knowledge, but in the 7. D. S. plot and 2 Henry VI., Act iv. in the Folio, where he replaces Nick of the Quarto. There can be no doubt of this being an actor's name; and its occurrence shows at once that the Cade part of the play was revised, and that the revision was probably made after 1594. Had it been earlier, there would have been two Johns in the company, Duke and Holland, and Duke would not have been called simply Jack.

If the above conclusions are well founded, 2 Henry VI. was originally written for the Queen's men as a continuation of 1 Henry VI., and, like the latter-mentioned play, passed into the hands of Lord Strange's men in 1591-2, but was not, like it, then revised; or it may, like George a Greene, have passed to Sussex' men; from them, like Titus Andronicus, to Pembroke's; and thence to the Chamberlain's. It is noticeable that although published in Quarto by the same person, Millington, who published 3 Henry VI. as the True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York in 1595, he put no name of acting company on the former play, as he did that of Pembroke's on the latter. This distinctly shows that the original companies for whom these plays were written were not identical, and that that of 2 Henry VI. was probably unknown to Millington. As to the authorship of 2 Henry VI., it will be well to make F. the basis of investigation, always having in mind the possibility of passages having been inserted by the ultimate reviser. The corruption and omission in Q. caused by the shortening for stage purposes have been so great, that the usual plan of beginning with Q. becomes altogether misleading. The example of 1 Henry VI. induces me to attach great weight to the chronological arrangement of the historical facts. Henry's marriage in 1445 forms the subject of i. 1, evidently written by Greene originally. The word "alderliefest" in 1. 28 should specially be noted: it is used by Greene in his Mourning Garment, and "aldertruest" in his James IV. Such words are not found in Marlowe, Peele, Lodge, or Shakespeare; yet here one occurs in a passage found in F. but not in Q., plainly indicating omission in Q., not addition in F. The next portion, i. 2-ii. 4, is concerned with the banishment of the Duchess of Gloster, 1441, and the story of Saunder Simcox, 1441, with which is incorporated the accusation of the armourer for high treason, 1446. This part (except i. 3. 45-103) is mainly by George Peele, but much altered in the F. revision. Peele his mark, "sandy plains," occurs in i. 4. 39. The Simcox anecdote, however, ii. 1. 59-153, which is quite unconnected with the rest of the play, is more like Kyd's work than Peele's, and may have been written by him. The exceptional bit, i. 3. 45-103, to the conversation in which no historical date can be assigned, is manifest Marlowe; a preparation for iii. 1-iv. 1, which is beyond question by him. The events in this section are (iii. 1a) the accusation and (iii. 2) murder of Gloster in 1447; (iii. 3) the banishment of Suffolk, 1447; (iii. 3) the death of Winchester in 1447; (iii. 1b) the Irish insurrection in 1449; and, finally, (iv. 1) the death of Suffolk in 1450. These scenes are the salt of the play. The opening lines of iv. 1, the description in iii. 2. 160, &c., the awful pathos of the death of Winchester, are from the same hand as the end of Doctor Faustus. The differences of Q. and F. in this portion are mostly due to omissions in Q.: iii. 3, for instance, could not have been left in the state in which Q. has it by the meanest of the authors of the play: it is cut down by some illiterate actor. That revision there has been is, however, plain from the singular circumstance that in iii. 2 Elianor is given for Margaret as the Queen's name. This is probably due to Marlowe's almost simultaneous work on the older John, in which Queen Elianor is a prominent character. It would seem that the revisor missed this scene, although correcting Margaret properly in the others. It is no printer's error; for in l. 26 we have "Nell," for which some modern editors euphoniously substitute "Meg." The rest of the play, iv. 2-v. 3, is by one hand, and that hand Lodge's. The notion that Greene wrote it arises from want of discriminating Greene's work from Lodge's in The Looking-glass for London, all the better part of which is by Lodge. I fear that those who underrate the powers of this elegant and (in his own line) powerful writer estimate him by his earliest dramatic effort, Marius and Sylla. He should be read in his Glaucus and Rosalynde; and his evident wish to avoid being known as a dramatic writer should be taken into account. That he did continue to write plays for many years, I have no doubt, but the evidence is too extensive to be given here. This part of the play includes Cade's insurrection, 1450, and the battle of St. Albans, 1455.

As regards the date, &c., of revision, see under the next play.

3 Henry VI. is of very different character from the two preceding plays. If read in the F. version, no change of authorship is perceptible; all is consistent; and if the Q. version had not come down to us, no one would have suspected a second author. It is plainly by Marlowe, but the Marlowe of Edward II., not of Faustus, later in date than 2 Henry VI. F. is nearly if not quite identical with the original play. Q. is not, as in the case of the preceding play, an abridgment for the stage made by the actors, but one made for the same purpose, carefully and accurately, apparently by the author himself. The reason for this difference in the treatment of the plays is manifest. 3 Henry VI. was, as we know from the title-page, acted by Pembroke's men, and F. is printed from a prompter's copy, in which the names of Gabriel [Spenser], Humphrey [Jeffes], and [John] Sinkler appear in the stage directions; and they were actors for that company. There is not a particle of evidence that this stage copy was ever altered in any way after the Chamberlain's company acquired it. A careful examination of such passages as ii. 5, the stronghold of the revision theory, shows too much coincidence between Q. and F. for any likelihood of rewriting having taken place, except by way of abridgment in Q. But in 2 Henry VI. things are quite different: the Greene and Marlowe parts are merely abridged in Q., and the Peele a good deal revised in F. as well as abridged in Q.; but the Lodge part at the end is absolutely rewritten in the St. Alban's battle, and the very names of the actors are changed in the Cade insurrection. Who could have done this but Shakespeare? Here, and here only, can we find an explanation of the inclusion of these plays in the Folio edition of his works in 1623. In my opinion the history of the plays is this: About 1588-9, Marlowe plotted, and, in conjunction with Kyd (or Greene), Peele, and Lodge, wrote 1 Henry VI. for the Queen's men. About 1589 the same authors wrote 2 Henry VI.; in that year I have ascertained that Marlowe left the Queen's men, and in 1590 joined Pembroke's, for whom he alone wrote 3 Henry VI. In 1591-2 the Queen's men were in distress, and sold, among other plays, 1 Henry VI. to Lord Strange's men, who produced it in 1592 with Shakespeare's Talbot additions as a new play. In the autumn of that year or in 1593-4, when the companies travelled on account of the plague, they cut down their plays for country representation; among others, 2 Henry VI. (altered by some illiterate) and 3 Henry VI. (abridged by Marlowe himself). On this point compare the parallel instances of abridged plays, Hamlet, Orlando, and The Guise. In May 1593 2 Henry VI. passed to the Sussex' men with Leir, &c., when the Queen's men broke up; in February 1594 with Andronicus to Pembroke's; in April, when Pembroke's company partly dissolved, all three plays were reunited in the hands of the Chamberlain's men; and for them 2 Henry VI. was, c. 1600, after Lodge had retired, remodelled by Shakespeare, and 3 Henry VI. corrected – the other authors, Peele, Marlowe, (Kyd?), and Greene, having died before 1598. Meanwhile Millington published 2 Henry VI. Q. as York and Lancaster, and 3 Henry VI. Q. as Richard Duke of York, these abridged copies having become useless to Pembroke's men on the ceasing of the plague and of their travels.