the marriage of Henry and Catherine, and peace between the two kingdoms; whereas, in fact, nearly five years elapsed before those events were accomplished.

The Emperor Sigismund came over to England, and went also to France, but unsuccessfully endeavoured to mediate a peace. * The war was carried on languidly, but much in favour of Henry, until the year 1419, when the Duke of Burgundy made a new attempt to bring about a peace; † and this is the earliest event, after the battle of Agincourt, which is mentioned by Shakspeare, who, however, confounds the meeting which occurred between the two courts near Meulan with that which subsequently took place at Troyes.

The poet introduces (at Troyes) both the kings, and Queen Isabel of Bavaria, wife of the French monarch, who was himself absent on account of his constitutional malady. The Princess Catherine is also brought on the stage, as well as the Duke of Burgundy.+

*Hol., 85; Elmh. 73; Tyler, 204.

+ Hol., 107; Elmh. 212.

Jean Sanspeur, the same whom Henry the Fourth assisted. Of English nobles are named, Bedford, Gloucester, Exeter, Warwick, and Westmoreland. I am not enabled to say whether these were, or were not, present either at Meulan or Troyes.

"The said Lady Katharine (says Holinshed) was brought by her mother only to the intent that the King of England, beholding her excellent beauty, should be so inflamed and rapt in her love, that, to obtain her to his wife, should the sooner agree to a gentle peace and loving concord."

But Henry was not so easily caught, for Shakspeare is warranted by the Chronicle in making him tell Burgundy, who had set forth the evils of

war

If, Duke of Burgundy, you would the peace
Whose want gives growth to the imperfections
Which you have cited, you must buy that peace
With full accord to all our just demands."

"Cousin, we will have your king's daughter, and all things that we demand with her, or we will drive your king and you out of his realm.”*

Shakspeare brings about his dénouement by making the French king agree to everything; but in truth this negotiation, in which the Duke of Burgundy was concerned, was broken off; the war was renewed, and it was not until 1420 (after the murder of the Duke of Burgundy †) that the meeting was held at Troyes.

There is contemporary authority for the salute

* Hol., 108: Monstrelet, ii. 232; Elmham, 216-226. ↑ John Duke of Burgundy was succeeded in 1419 by his son, Philip Count of Charolois.

which Henry bestowed upon Catherine, but time and place are mis-stated. It was given in the first interview at Meulan, and not in the presence of one lady in waiting only (as in Shakspeare), but before the two assembled courts; so publicly, indeed, as to cause her to blush deeply, and to be handed to her tent by the Duke of Burgundy.*

"Uncle Exeter," † whom Shakspeare makes withdraw to negotiate with the French king, was in fact sent to him at Troyes, in company with the young Duke of Burgundy. At Troyes there was a meeting of all parties, being the second of the two which Shakspeare confounds; here the treaty was concluded, by which Henry was to succeed to the crown of France, after the death of Charles the Sixth, and the marriage was celebrated in June 1420.

"This play (says Johnson) has many scenes of high dignity, and many of easy merriment. The character of the king is well supported, except in his courtship, where he has neither the vivacity of Hal, nor the grandeur of Henry. The lines given to the

* Elm. 222; Monst. ii. 230. Tyler gives a full account of the meeting at Meulan, but no authority. See Sismondi, xii. 572.

+ Exeter is named by Holinshed (113) as well as Shakspeare, but his companions are different.

Sismondi, xii. 597; Elmham, 266; Monst., 277.

chorus have many admirers, but the truth is, that, in them, a little may be praised, and much must be forgiven.. The great defect of this play is the emptiness and narrowness of the last act, which a very little diligence might have easily avoided."

The remarks upon Henry are just, including the condemnation of the courtship scenes, which, as being imaginary, and not well imagined, I have not noticed. Henry the Fifth is justly painted as a brave and generous man, affable and of popular manners; though Sismondi deems otherwise of him, chiefly because he was peremptory in his language to the politic and shifty Duke of Burgundy. But Johnson scarcely does justice to the chorus. Of the introduction to the fourth act, Tom Campbell says, "The description of the night before the battle of Agincourt will be repeated by the youth of England, when our children's children shall be grey with age." I am afraid that my truly poetical friend describes what ought to be, not what is or will be.

*

* Sismondi, xii. 572.

212

HENRY VI.-PART I.

I Now come to the worst of the historical plays, the three parts of Henry the Sixth. It has been doubted whether Shakspeare wrote any one of these, and it was the decided opinion of Malone and Farmer, from which, however, Steevens and Johnson dissented, that he did not write, or even re-model and adopt, the first part. I will not undertake to decide between these two pairs of critics; nor indeed have I looked sufficiently into the evidence to justify a strong opinion. I am afraid that a play may contain a great deal that is bad, and still be the work of our poet; but, whether five acts of diversified writing, with scarcely one passage of eminent merit, can be Shakspeare's work, is more doubtful. I attach considerable importance to Malone's remark* upon the dissimilar versification of this piece from that of the undoubted plays. Of this first play, the rhythm is neither appropriate nor agreeable.

* Bosw., xviii. 4; and 560.