addition of Shakspeare's own invention, and a striking deviation from history-namely, that Bolingbroke accuses his adversary of appropriating eight thousand nobles, which he had received to pay the king's soldiers at Calais, of being the occasion of all the treason contrived in the realm for eighteen years, and, by his false suggestions and malicious counsels, of having caused the duke of Gloster to be murdered—all this is given in Holinshed's Chronicle, as the substance of Bolingbroke's public accusation against Norfolk. The only thing that can appear strange is that Shakspeare gives such a minute account of the quarrel between the two men, and that he represents it in all its details. He was, however, evidently induced to do this partly on account of the historical importance of the matter, and partly on account of the excellent opportunity it offered for contrasting the two opponents, Richard and Bolingbroke, and of throwing a bright light upon the difference between the two characters.

It is also not true (as Gervinus maintains) that Shakspeare represents the old and venerable Duke of Gaunt of a greater age than he is in history; according to Holinshed, at all events-as in Shakspeare-Gaunt dies shortly before the campaign in Ireland in 1399. On the other hand, history certainly does not report anything of the conversation between the dying Duke of Gaunt and his deluded nephew. But who would miss this scene, who would declare it to be unhistorical merely because nothing is reported of it? Shakspeare wove it into his. drama because it explains, in the clearest and most effective manner, Richard's life and character, what he was and what he had become. The same reason induced the poet to increase the age of Richard's wife who at the time of his execution was scarcely ten years old—so that she can stand by his side as his consort. Again, a similar reason makes him introduce the Duchess of York as her son's advocate, that is, partly in order to place greater stress upon the importance of the scene, and partly in order to make Henry's conduct (after he has ascended the throne), his imperturbable composure, gentleness, and amiability a very contrast to Richard's and the old Duke of York's mode of action. These are the only alterations

ж

6

that Shakspeare has ventured to make in the historical tradition with the exception of a few chronological deviations or rather condensations. For his being supposed to have chosen the least authenticated' of the various reports regarding the manner in which Richard was put to death-probably on account of its greater poetico-dramatic value is not true, in so far as Holinshed intimates that he himself considers the account which Shakspeare follows the more worthy of credit, because it is reported by an author who appears to have been well informed.*

The highly finished style of the drama in which historical truth is so wonderfully blended with poetical beauty of language, delineation of character and composition, accounts for its great popularity, not only with the public of recent times, but even with that of Shakspeare's own day; this is proved by the unusually large number of old quartos which exist of the piece. The first of these appeared in 1597, the second as early as the following year 1598, the third in 1608, the fourth in 1615; and as late as 1634 (soon after the publication of the second folio) there appeared a special reprint of the piece with the remark,' as it hath been lately acted by the kinges servantes at the Globe.' Accordingly it may be assumed that it was brought upon the stage at latest in 1596, probably not much earlier; at all events it was written later than Richard III.' and the three parts of 'Henry VI.,' compared with which it is, in every respect, so far superior that it cannot possibly be placed in the same period with them. But I also consider it a later work than ‘King John.' It is true that we meet with many more passages in rhyme here than in 'King John,' however only for this reason, that not only Shakspeare's drama, but the very history of the reign of Richard II. is richer in lyrical elements than that of John; for the same reason the three parts of Henry VI.' also-although they assuredly are among the works of Shakspeare's youth-contain fewer passages of this kind. On the other hand we find

6

*See also A. Schmidt, Einleitung zu Richard II., in the translation of Shakspeare's works by Schlegel and Tieck, published by the German Shakspeare Society.

And

comparatively but few alternate rhymes in 'Richard II.,' and these are characteristic of his earlier dramas. yet, in my opinion, the versification is a decided criterion, for compared with its almost uniform regularity in 'King John,' it is freer, more varied, more fluent and harmoniously blended with the subject of the conversations and their turns. The language also-which in 'King John' has still a somewhat dry colour-is fuller, more high sounding, brilliant and richer in thoughts. I think, therefore, that the piece was not written earlier than 1595.

*

It has been concluded from the introduction of the celebrated parliament-scene (iv. 1), which, as it seems, was a subsequent addition (at least, it is not met with in the two earlier quartos, and is expressly mentioned on the title-page of the third of 1608 as a new addition'), that Shakspeare may at a later date have remodelled the whole play. But a comparison of the different quartos proves that-as Clark and Wright observe-every subsequent edition is but a reprint of its predecessor, and that the text of the fourth quarto is founded upon that of the first folio. What may have induced Shakspeare to introduce this scene, cannot, of course, be determined, scarcely even conjectured, perhaps simply because he found it necessary for the sake of historical truth and the artistic finish of the play, perhaps because he wished to distinguish his 'Richard II.' from the politically different (as it seems anti-royalistic) tendency of another lost drama on the same subject. Of this lost drama we have some account in Dr. Forman's notes of the year 1611, and is probably the same 'Richard II.,' which, in 1601, the Earl of Essex and his insurrectionists had performed, in order to rouse the people against the Queen.

* Cambridge Edition of Shakspeare's Works, vol. iv. p. 8.

CHAPTER VII.

HENRY IV. FIRST AND SECOND PARTS.

RICHARD II.' is the first part of the great historical drama of five acts which closes with Richard III.'it is self-evident that the wrong-doings of ‘Richard II.' and their just punishment, can be no excuse for the wrong of Bolinbroke's rebellion. This is shown directly by the two following dramas which bear the name of 'Henry IV.'; they form the main point in the development of the great cyclic whole, the last link of which is Richard III., and therefore require to be the more fully and closely examined.

The usurped majesty of Henry IV. reminds us in the first place of John's borrowed majesty; but the relations in the present case are very different. John is opposed by a claimant to the throne, who is protected by the church, by France and by the English barons; the main stress is laid upon the disturbance, the weakness and the abuse of secular as well as of ecclesiastical power, which for this very reason are at conflict with one another and destroy the foundations of human society. Henry IV., on the other hand, has merely to struggle with some of the barons of his own kingdom; the latter are, it is true, supported by some of the bishops, not, however, as representatives of the church, but as dignitaries of the kingdom. Thus in the present case, as in 'Richard II.,' everything moves within the sphere of the state, and therefore the two parts of 'Henry IV.,' when regarded as one whole, are either but the continuation, or again but the contrast to 'Richard II.'

For certain as it is that the unkingly Richard was most justly deprived of his royal power, as certain is it that he could not and ought not to have been robbed of all right to the throne. The external, legal right was unquestionably his. The triumphant rebellion, ought

only to have limited Richard's power in so far as to make its abuse an impossibility or, at most, to have suspended his rule till he had become a wiser and better man, and thus combined within himself the outward and inward title. This was demanded by the true and inviolable law which is administered by history. Richard's actual dethronement, therefore, was an undeniable wrong; this Shakspeare has brought fully into view at the close of the drama. In the depth of his humiliation, and distracted by sorrow and repentance, Richard exhibits a nobility of soul and a greatness of mind far superior to that of Henry IV. In prison Richard builds himself an indestructible throne; in prison and in death he becomes a true king.

Notwithstanding this, he remains dethroned and is murdered at Henry's instigation, and the latter then ascends the throne burdened with the crime; open and secret wrong, breach of faith and violence, falsehood and deception were the means by which he obtained possession of the crown. Accordingly the conflict in question is not yet settled, the point at issue has rather only been reversed. Previously the external right was opposed to the internal right, now the internal right stands opposed to the external right. Henry IV. is inwardly well entitled to the English throne, owing to his cleverness, his thoughtfulness and moderation, his bravery and his energy; but outwardly his crown has not only been acquired by an act of violence, but it is disputed by other and nearer claims which cannot be suppressed by force. Nay, a new conflict is added to the old one. Henry's inward title is not complete or adequate. His mental abilities are indeed such as might have entitled him to rule, and he is perhaps the worthiest among the various members of the royal family; but inward justification must above all things possess that which first proves, sustains, and preserves the full title, i.e. the ethical foundation-moral sentiment, moral power and steadfastness-which cannot be either turned or bent, but irresistibly obeys the eternal laws of all existence. This element is wanting in Henry IV. He is not morally corrupt, not actually an immoral character; his moral justification would have