After speaking of the three heroines above Loosing their paynes, and lacking still their wage, He then goes on to relate his own reverse of fortune. Certainly this would seem to infer that the writer was not aware of any play on the subject of Richard III. then being acted on the stage; yet we know that the so-called True Tragedy of Richard III., published in 1594, was acted by "the Queenes Maiesties Players;" and it is generally supposed that this was an old play which was published on account of the then popularity of Shakespeare's play; a conjecture which would certainly imply that Shakespeare's play was acted early in 1594, if not in 1593. But it may be that the enterprising publisher of The True Tragedy of Richard III. brought out that somewhat effete work, because he heard that Shakespeare was preparing a play on the subject; or, again, it may have been published independently, or in consequence of the recent productions of the two last parts of Henry VI. We do not find in Henslowe's Diary any mention of a representation of Shakespeare's Richard III. or of any play of that name. It would appear that on 12th June, 1602 (p. 223), Henslowe lent £10 to "bengemy Johnsone, at the apoyntment of E. Alleyn and Wm. Birde, the 24 of June 1602, in earneste of a boocke called Richard crockbacke." If Ben Jonson ever wrote this play it must have perished, for nothing is known of it. There is an undated entry in Chettle's handwriting, being a receipt for forty shillings "in earnest of the Booke of Shoare, now newly to be written for the Earl of Worcesters players at the Rose" (p. 214). This must have been some time before the accession of James I. (see note 2, same page). On the 9th May, 1603, there is an entry of a loan "at the apoyntment of Thomas hewod" (Heywood) “and John Ducke unto harry Chettell in earneste of a playe wherein Shores wiffe is writen." It is not known to what plays these two several entries refer. Possibly Chettle assisted Heywood in revising his play of Edward IV. mentioned below. But we get no help from Henslowe's Diary in determining the date of Shakespeare's Richard III. The internal evidences of the play itself, such as the long passages in 27xouveia, and the constant tendency to a bombastic style, certainly point to its having been written at an immature period of Shakespeare's career; but the metrical tests do not exactly tally with so early a date. However, it must be remembered that the play was undoubtedly revised, probably more than once, by the author. As has been said above, the present shape, in which we have it, is certainly not that in which it first left his hand. Of plays on the same subject there were two Latin ones; one by Thomas Legge, acted at St. John's College, Cambridge, 1579, of which MS. copies existed in the University Library and in that of Emmanuel College; and another, on the same subject, which Halliwell describes as a poor imitation of this, by Henry Lacey, and which was acted at Trinity College, 1586. It is possible that Shakespeare knew little and troubled himself less about these two Latin plays. What attracted his attention to the subject was, probably, 'The True Tragedy of Richard III.' We may conclude that this had been played, more or less frequently, for two or three years before it was printed. The following is the title-page: "The True Tragedie of Richard the Third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shores wife, an example for all wicked women. And lastly the coniunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. London Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by William Barley, at his shop in Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore, 1594." About this play, already alluded to, nothing is known as to its authorship or stage-history. The most interesting play by one of Shakespeare's contemporaries, in which Richard III. figures as a character, is Hey wood's Second Part of Edward IV. In this play Richard is by no means the hero; the tragical end of Jane Shore forming the principal subject, in the pathetic description of whose death the author has foreshadowed the last scene of his best-known play, A Woman Killed With Kindness. Both parts of Heywood's Edward IV. should be read by all students of Shakespeare along with III. Henry VI. and Richard III. Heywood's play was printed in 1600, the title being "THE SECOND PART OF KING EDWARD THE FOURTH. | Containing his iourney into France, for the obtaining of his right there: | The trecherous falshood of the Duke of Burgundie and the Constable of France vsed against him, and his returne home | againe. | Likewise the prosecution of the historie of M. | Shoare and his faire wife | Concluding with the lamentable death of them | both." Both parts were published together, and, as is stated on the title-page, they had "diuers times beene publiquely played by the Right Honourable the Earle of Derbie his seruants," so that they probably must have been produced some time before that date: they could scarcely have preceded Richard III. There is no sign of either author having copied from the other; though, of course, interesting resemblances may be found between some of Richard's speeches in both plays. The pieces in The Mirror for Magistrates,1 before the period of this play, are, in The Third Part of that work, number 73, George Plantagenet, attributed to Baldwin; 74, King Edward the Fourth, by Skelton; 75, Lord Rivers, attributed to Baldwin; 76, Lord Hastings, by Dolman; 77, The Complaynt of Henry Duke of Buckingham, by Sackville; 79, Richarde Plantagenet Duke of Glocester, by Segar; 84, Shore's Wife, by Churchyard; this last one was included in a collection of poems, 1593, called Churchyard's Challenge, and is the same poem that appeared in the original edition of The Mirror for Magistrates, augmented by twenty-one stanzas. By a curi 1 The numbers attached to the various pieces are taken from the reprint of this well-known work by Joseph Hazlewood, 1815, and will be found in vols ii. and iii. respectively. ous mistake Stokes, in his Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays, refers to this as a play, and calls it Churchyard's (p. 29). Finally, there are two pieces in Pt. IV. by Richard Niccols: 95, The lamentable lives and deaths of the two young Princes, Edward the fifth and his brother Richard Duke of York; and 96, The tragicall life and death of King Richard the third. These were written after the appearance of Shakespeare's play. The most interesting parallel passages in these poems and Richard III. will be found quoted in the notes. There is rather a striking resemblance between a passage in Richard III.'s first soliloquy (i. 1. 12-15) and a poem included in the first issue of Epigrammes and Elegies by J. D. and C. M. and headed Ignoto: I am not fashion'd for these amorous times, (See Dyce's Marlowe, 1876, p. 366.) It may be remarked that this poem does not appear in the subsequent editions, which are both undated; but, on the authority of Ritson, the date of the first edition is generally assigned to 1596 (ut supra, Preface, p. xxxviii.). The resemblance is not very exact, but there is sufficient similarity of expression to suggest that the one author might have had the other's lines in his mind at the time. Perhaps this passage may be held by some to bear on the question whether this play is by the same authors as The Contention and The True Tragedy, and was only revised by Shakespeare. It would be interesting to analyse the language of Richard III., and to see how many peculiar or characteristic phrases and words are common to that play and to the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI. There are certainly passages in Richard III. which are suggestive of Marlowe's inflated style; but whether these passages were due simply to the fact of Shakespeare being, in the earlier part of his career, consciously or unconsciously, an imitator of the older dramatist, or whether they were due to Marlowe's open co-operation, we probably never shall know. If concordances could be made to the works of the Elizabethan dramatists, they would be of infinite assistance in determining the question as to the supposed joint-authorship of some of Shakespeare's plays. For instance, if we find that in the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI. and in Richard III. there are many peculiar words used, and used only in these plays by Shakespeare, which words are also characteristic of, if not peculiar to Marlowe, it would be a considerable piece of presumptive evidence that he assisted Shakespeare in the composition of all three plays. Mr. P. A. Daniel has no doubt that this play is "the work of the author or authors of the Henry VI. series of plays" (ut supra, p. iv.). But until we have some very much stronger evidence than has yet been offered of the work of any other writer in this play, we shall not attempt to rob Shakespeare of the fame which belongs to the author of Richard III. STAGE HISTORY. Although so popular and so frequently acted, as this play must have been between 1595 and 1630, very little has come down to us with regard to the stage history of Richard III. during this period; but there are several contemporary allusions. How closely Burbage was associated with the part of Richard III. appears from the well-known passage in Bishop Corbet's Iter Boreale (written about 1618), in which he mentions that his host rode with him part of the way, on his journey from Nuneaton to Coventry, when they passed close to Bosworth Field: See yee yon wood? There Richard lay, But cheifly by that one perspicuous thing, For when he would have sayd, King Richard dyed, In the journal of John Manningham, 1601, under date 2d February and 13th March, there is an anecdote-we cannot quote it herein which Burbage is even more strongly identified with Richard III. In the Third Part of The Return from Parnassus (1601) Burbage (who is introduced as a character) says to Philomusus: "I like your face and the proportion of your body for Richard the 3. I pray M. Phil. let me see you act a little of it. Phil. Now is the winter of our discontent, Made glorious summer by the sonne of Yorke." (Macray's Reprint, 1886, pp. 140, 141.) The numerous quotations and imitations of the well-known line A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse are given in note 655. The earliest absolute mention of the performance of the play is found in Sir Henry Herbert's Diary, in which it is stated that "Richarde the Thirde was acted by the K. players at St. James, wher the king and queene were present, it being the first play the queene sawe since her M. delivery of the Duke of York. 1633." As we have already said, there is no mention of this play in Henslowe, and none in Pepys. Betterton does not seem ever to have played Shakespeare's Richard III., though he represented the character of Richard III. in The English Princess, by Caryll, in 1667. In fact, we can find no record of the performance of this play till Cibber's hybrid composition was produced, when "it seems to have been printed without the names of the performers to the D. P." (Genest, vol. ii. p. 195). This version, to the eternal discredit of the national intelligence and taste, held the stage for over one hundred and fifty years. As we purpose giving a reprint of Cibber's version, with an analysis of its several component parts, it is not necessary, at this point, to say anything more about it. It would be impossible to go through the list of the many celebrated actors who have, more or less, made their mark in the part of Richard. Among the most celebrated names are those of Quin, Ryan, Barry, Sheridan, Henderson, Kemble, and Kean. Garrick, as is well known, made his first appearance at Good N.B. Between the Two Parts of the Concert will be presented an Historical Play, called the Life and Death of | King RICHARD THE THIRD. Containing the distresses of K. Henry VI. | The artful acquisition of the Crown by King Richard, | The Murder of Young King Edward V, and his Brother in the Tower, The landing of the Earl of Richmond, And the Death of King Richard in the memorable Battle of Bosworth Field, being the last that was fought between the Houses of York and Lancaster; with many other true Historical Passages. | The Part of King Richard by A GENTLEMAN, (who never appeared on any stage)." &c. &c. There is nothing to be astonished at that Garrick should prefer Cibber's deformation to the original play; but we cannot help regretting that Edmund Kean should have fallen into the same error of taste. It may be doubted whether any real Shakespearean part ever suited Garrick so well as the Cibberized Richard III. On 27th May, 1776, at Drury Lane, Mrs. Siddons played Lady Anne for the first time. On 5th June of the same year Garrick acted Richard for the last time; Mrs. Siddons again representing Lady Anne, being her last performance that season. It has been remarked that this great actress, on her first appearance in London, seems to have made no impression whatever on her audience. Garrick himself is said to have thought very little of her talent. Among the many performances of this play one or two are perhaps worth recording. On 1st April, 1810-11, Richard III. was played with John Kemble as Richard, and Charles Kemble as Richmond. John Kemble had revised Cibber's version; but, unfortunately, he had restored little if any of Shakespeare's text. On 12th June, 1813, Betty made his last appearance on the stage as Richard III. He was no longer a child, and seems to have lost his attraction for the public. Richard III. was one of Kean's most popular impersonations; but it may be doubted whether his greatest qualities were so forcibly displayed in this character as in Othello, Hamlet, or Lear. Like everything he did, Kean's conception of the character was essentially original and carefully thought out; all the finest portions of it were those in which Shakespeare's poetry had been untouched by the deforming hand of Cibber. It seems that in his first season at Drury Lane, 1813, 1814, Kean acted the part twenty-five times, and in his next season at the same theatre also twenty-five times: the only other play of Shakespeare he played as often in that season being Macbeth. On 12th March, 1821, at Covent Garden, a memorable attempt was made to restore to the stage Shakespeare's play of Richard III. For this version Macready was probably responsible. Genest says (vol. ix. p. 107) that the first two acts went off with great applause;" but, on the whole, the piece was received coldly by the audience, and was only repeated once, on the 19th of the same month, and then laid aside. Macready played Richard; Yates, Buckingham; Abbott, Richmond; and Egerton, Clarence, who, with Mrs. Faucit as Queen Margaret, seems to have made the greatest success in the piece. On the 29th January, 1877, fortunately for those, to whom the true interests of dramatic art and the name of Shakespeare are dear, Richard III., “arranged for the Stage exclusively from the author's text," was produced at the Lyceum Theatre. This is not the place to speak of the chorus of approval with which this restoration of Shakespeare's text was received. Even those, who were not in any way admirers of Mr. Irving, had nothing but praise for his Richard; while the audience saw that the text of Shakespeare, properly abbreviated and arranged, formed a much more dramatic play than Cibber's alteration. CRITICAL REMARKS. The great popularity of this play in Shakespeare's time is undoubted, and cannot be overlooked by any critic attempting to esti mate its merits. Whether the number of early editions published of it is a proof that, during the first thirty years of the seventeenth century, Richard III. was held to rank equally high, both as a literary work and as an acting play, is uncertain; but there can be little doubt that no work of Shakespeare's was more generally read, with the exception of the Poems, than Richard III. and those one or two other plays which came nearest to it in popularity. In later times its literary merits cannot have been very highly esteemed, or Cibber's miserable version would not have been allowed to hold the stage so long, and indeed to have been the only form in which this play was known by most of Shakespeare's countrymen. When one comes to study the play carefully, and to read it through from beginning to end, one sees that the impression it produces upon one, when acted, is, after all, not far from the right one. Richard himself is, in reality, the play. We have, in passing, a strong sympathy for the young princes; we feel a mild pang of pity for the other numerous victims of Richard's merciless ambition: but it is the many-sided, resolute, and intellectual villain that really absorbs our attention, preoccupies our interest, and, in spite of his crimes, almost takes by storm our sympathies. A very Proteus he is, morally speaking: now an ardent lover, the next moment a plausible statesman, then a generous and doting friend; now a religious hypocrite and next a daring soldier. It is the ever-changing variety of his wickedness that fascinates us. Though he commits every crime which the hero of the coarsest melodrama ever committed, there is nothing vulgar about him. Endowed by nature with the dramatic temperament in its highest degree, he is such a superb actor--and he knows it-that he can simulate the most elevated sentiments, the most passionate emotions, with such wonderful superficial truth, that we feel he might deceive the devil himself; to say nothing of the weak and silly women or the blindly selfseeking men upon whom he practises his wiles. With the exception of Margaret, Shake speare has not bestowed much care upon the other characters of the play; yet they are sufficiently well drawn to interest one, did not Richard overshadow them all. Students, who read Shakespeare only, can discourse most eloquently upon the grand idea of Margaret, the impersonation of Nemesis, glorying in the vengeance which falls, in most cases with only too much justice, on those who had been either principles or accomplices in the rebellion against her late royal husband, in the murder of her darling child, and in all the horrible acts of cruelty which the Yorkist party, ultimately triumphant in the long civil wars, had perpetrated. But when the play is brought to the true test of a play,—when it is acted--were Margaret to be represented by one who had inherited all the talent and reputation of a Siddons, added to the prestige of a popular favourite at the present day, no one would take much interest in her, or regard her otherwise than as something of a bore, who interferes with the main action of the drama. Truth to tell, there is no female character in Richard III. that can interest one, dramatically speaking. Shakespeare has subordinated, so ruthlessly, every other one of the Dramatis Persona to the central figure, Richard, that the wrongs of Elizabeth and of Anne make but little impression upon us, so angry are we at the weakness with which they succumb to the wily arts of Richard. They accept his simulations for realities so blindly, that the audience cannot reproach themselves because they are equally deceived. If those, whose dearest ones he had so treacherously murdered, can forgive him, why should not the spectators do so; for they can have no personal feeling against him, and are, moreover, dazzled by his intellectual brilliancy and by the imposing vigour of his character? Margaret alone resists him, and never flinches in her virulent denunciations of his crimes. Shakespeare throws an unnecessary monotony into her cursing. She is always declaiming, as it were, in the same key; and we should be more than mortal if these reiterated curses, this ever-flowing torrent of imprecation, did not weary us. We forget that she was ever young and handsome. We forget how nobly she stood by her son, when |