Part ii

.]

[1619] N.D. The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt. Diuided into two Parts: And newly corrected and enlarged. Written by William Shakespeare, Gent. _For T. P._ [Parts i and ii, printed continuously with _Pericles_, 1619 (q.v.).]

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1843, _Sh. Soc._), Wright and Clark (1863–6, 1893, _Cambridge Shakespeare_), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. Libr._ v, vi), F. J. Furnivall and T. Tyler (1886, 1889, 1891, _Sh. Q_), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: E. Malone, _On the Three Parts of Hen. 6_ (1821, _Variorum_, xviii. 553); R. Grant White, _On the Authorship of Hen. 6_ (_Works of Sh._ 1859–65, vii); J. Lee, _On the Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. vi and their Originals_ (_N. S. S. Trans._ 1875–6, 219); C. F. T. Brooke, _The Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. 6_ (1912, _Trans. of Connecticut Academy_, xvii. 141).

The various claims of Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, Peele, Lodge, and Shakespeare himself to the _Contention_ can only be discussed in relation to Shakespeare’s revision of them as _2, 3 Henry VI_, which probably belongs approximately to the date of _1 Henry vi_, produced by Strange’s on 3 March 1592.

_Thomas Lord Cromwell > 1602_

_S. R._ 1602, Aug. 11 (Jackson). ‘A booke called the lyfe and Deathe of the Lord Cromwell, as yt was lately Acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his servantes.’ _William Cotton_ (Arber, iii. 214).

1602. The True Chronicle Historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord Cromwell. As it hath beene sundrie times publikely Acted by the Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Written by W. S. _For William Jones._

_S. R._ 1611, Dec. 16. Transfer from William Jones to John Browne of a ‘booke called the lyfe and death of the Lord Cromwell, by W: S.’ (Arber, iii. 474).

1613.... As it hath been sundry times publikely Acted by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. Written by W. S. _Thomas Snodham._

1664; 1685. [Parts of F_{3} and F_{4} of Shakespeare.]

_Editions_ printed by R. Walker (1734) and by T. E. Jacob (1889, _Old English Dramas_), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh. Apocrypha._--_Dissertation_: W. Streit, _The L. and D. of T. L. C._ (1904, Jena diss.).

The W. S. of the title-page was interpreted as William Shakespeare in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, lx). No modern critic accepts the attribution, except Hopkinson, who thinks that the original author was Greene, and that Shakespeare revised his work. Heywood was suggested by R. Farmer, and Drayton by Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 298; _B.C._ i. 152, 160. The guesses at Wentworth Smith and William Sly rest merely on their initials.

_King Darius > 1565_

_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A playe intituled of the story of kyng Daryous beyinge taken oute of the iij^{de} and iiij^{th} chapeter of the iij^{de} boke of Esdras &c.’. _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 298).

1565, October. A Pretie new Enterlude both pithie & pleasaunt of the Story of Kyng Daryus, Beinge taken out of the third and fourth Chapter of the thyrd booke of Esdras. _Colwell._ [On t.p. ‘Syxe persons may easely play it’.]

1577. _Hugh Jackson._ [B.M. C. 34, i. 21, from Irish sale of 1906.]

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Brandl (1898), 359, J. S. Farmer (1907, 1909, _T. F. T._).

The characters, other than Darius and Zorobabell, are mainly abstract, and include Iniquitie, ‘the Vyce’. There is a Prolocutor.

_The Dead Mans Fortune > 1591_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The plotte of the deade mans fortune.’ [Probably from Dulwich.]

The text is given by Steevens, _Variorum_ (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, _Variorum_ (1821), iii. 356; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 133; and a facsimile by Halliwell, _The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas_ (1860).

The names of actors who took part in the play point to a performance by the Admiral’s, about 1590–1 (cf. ch. xiii).

_The Reign of King Edward the Third > 1595_

_S. R._ 1595, Dec. 1. ‘A book Intitled Edward the Third and the Blacke Prince their warres with kinge John of Fraunce.’ _Burby_ (Arber, iii. 55).

1596. The Raigne of King Edward the third: As it hath bin sundrie times plaied about the Citie of London. _For Cuthbert Burby._

1599. _Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby._

_Editions_ with Shakespeare _Apocrypha_, and by E. Capel (1759–60, _Prolusiones_), F. J. Furnivall (1877, _Leopold Sh._), J. P. Collier (1878, _Shakespeare_), G. C. Moore Smith (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: H. von Friesen, _Ed. iii, angeblich ein Stück von Sh._ (1867, _Jahrbuch_, ii. 64); J. P. Collier, _K. Edw. III, a Historical Play by W. Sh._ (1874); A. Teetgen, _Sh’s. K. Edw. iii, absurdly called, and scandalously treated, as a ‘Doubtful Play’: an Indignation Pamphlet_ (1875); A. C. Swinburne, _On the Historical Play of K. Edw. iii_ (1879, _Gent. Mag._, 1880, &c., _Study of Sh._); G. von Vincke, _K. Edw. iii, ein Bühnenstück?_ (1879, _Jahrbuch_, xiv. 304); E. Phipson, _Ed. iii_ (1889, _N. S. S. Trans._ 58*); G. Liebau, _K. Ed. iii von England und die Gräfin von Salisbury_ (1900, 1901), _K. Ed. iii von England im Lichte europäischer Poesie_ (1901); R. M. Smith, _Edw. III_ (1911, _J. G. P._ x. 90).

The authorship was first ascribed to Shakespeare (with that of _Edw. IV_ and _Edw. II_!) in Rogers and Ley’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, lxiv). The theory was advocated by Capell, and has received much support, largely owing to the assent of Tennyson, against whose authority, however, may be set that of Swinburne. In its latest and not altogether unplausible form, Shakespeare is regarded as the author, not of the whole play, but of i. 2 and ii, which deal with the episode of the wooing of Lady Salisbury by the king, and are possibly, although by no means certainly, due to another hand than that of the chronicle narrative, to which they are only slightly linked. The style of these scenes is not demonstrably un-Shakespearian, and they, and in less degree the play as a whole, contain many parallels with _Hen. V_ and other works of the ‘nineties, of which the repetition in II. i. 451 and in Sonnet XCIV of the line

Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds

is the most striking. The controversy cannot be dealt with in detail here. Shakespeare’s contribution, if any, may with most probability be assigned to the winter of 1594–5; but it does not follow that the original play may not have been of earlier date. No importance is to be attached to the argument of Fleay (ii. 62; _Shakespeare_, 282) that the use of the phrase ‘Ave, Caesar’ in I. i. 164 caused its use in Greene’s _Francesco’s Fortunes_ of 1590 (cf. App. C, no. xliii), but it is noteworthy that a play on the subject was produced, apparently under Anglo-German influence, at Danzig in 1591 (Herz, 5). Of non-Shakespearian authors, for the whole or a part of the play as extant, Marlowe is preferred by Fleay, Greene by Liebau and Robertson, and Kyd by Sarrazin.

_Edward the Fourth > 1599_

_S. R._ 1599, Aug. 28. ‘Twoo playes beinge the ffirst and Second parte of Edward the iiij^{th} and the Tanner of Tamworth With the history of the life and deathe of master Shore and Jane Shore his Wyfe as yt was lately acted by the Right honorable the Erle of Derbye his seruantes.’ _John Oxonbridge and John Burby_ (Arber, iii. 147).

1600, Feb. 23. Transfer of Busby’s interest to Humphrey Lownes (Arber, iii. 156).

1600. The First and Second Parts of King Edward the Fourth. Containing His mery pastime with the Tanner of Tamworth, as also his loue to faire mistrisse Shoare, her great promotion, fall and miserie and lastly the lamentable death of both her and her husband. Likewise the besieging of London, by the Bastard Falconbridge, and the valiant defence of the same by the Lord Maior and the Citizens. As it hath diuers times beene publikely played by the Right Honorable the Earle of Derbie his seruants. _F. K. for Humfrey Lownes and John Oxenbridge._

1605; 1613; 1619; 1626.

_Edition_ by B. Field (1842, _Sh. Soc._).--_Dissertation_: A. Sander, _T. Heywood’s Historien von König Edward iv und ihre Quellen_ (1907, Jena diss.).

Sander and others date the play 1594, by an identification with the anonymous _Siege of London_ revived by the Admiral’s on 26 Dec. 1594. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 173) more cautiously says that the play of 1594 ‘may underlie’ certain scenes of _1 Edward iv_. He regards _Edward iv_, ‘on internal evidence, as unquestionably Heywood’s’. This is the usual view, but Fleay, ii. 288, had doubted it. There is no external evidence for Heywood’s authorship, or for any connexion between him and Derby’s men. Moreover, in May 1603, he authorized Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s, to pay Chettle and Day for ‘the Booke of Shoare, now newly to be written’, also described as ‘a playe wherein Shores wiffe is writen’. If this was a revision of his own play, he would hardly have left it to others. It is fair to add that in the previous January he had himself received payment with Chettle for an unnamed play, which might be the same (Henslowe, ii. 234). The ‘three-mans song’ on Agincourt in iii. 2 of