*

scene is in a jingling rhyme, which, I believe, with Johnson, to have been taken from another work: nor do I believe it to be Shakspeare's.

The Duke of York is introduced + on the plains of Gascony, complaining that, owing to the failure of Somerset in sending him a reinforcement, he is unable to succour Talbot. Somerset is introduced with his force in another part of Gascony, complaining, in his turn, of the rashness of the expedition planned by York and Talbot, and his inability to spare any part of his force, which, however, he at last promises to do, when it is too late, being pressed by Sir William Lucy, § who goes backwards and forwards between the three commanders with ineffectual messages.

All that I can find respecting this quarrel between York and Somerset, as affecting this campaign, is a short passage in Holinshed.

'When the Duke of York had fastened his chain between these two strong pillars (the Earls of Salisbury

* Bosw., 122.

† Sc. 3.

Richard Plantagenet, of whom more presently. Sc. 4. The Duke of Somerset was now Edmund, brother to the John before mentioned, who had died in 1443. Nicolas, ii. 592.

There was at this time a William Lucy of Charlcote, ancestor to the Sir Thomas Lucy whom Shakspeare is supposed to have ridiculed as Justice Shallow. Burke, iii. 98,

See p. 246.

and Warwick), he, with his friends, wrought so effectuously, and handled his business so politicly, that the Duke of Somerset was arrested in the Queen's great chamber, and sent to the Tower of London, where he kept his Christmas without great solemnity: against whom, soon after, in open parliament, were laid divers and heinous articles of high treason, as well for the loss of Normandy, as for the late mischance which happened in Guienne."*

Of this arrest we shall hear in the next play, but I find in parliamentary records, no accusation of Somerset by York subsequent to the year 1451, when he was charged with the loss of Normandy : the Guienne affair had not then occurred. Nor do I find that Somerset was in France at the time of Talbot's death.

After the battle, Sir William Lucy demands the dead bodies of the slain, and especially of Talbot, whom he thus describes:

"The great Alcides of the field,

Valiant Lord Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury;
Created, for his rare success in arms,

Great Earl of Washford,† Waterford, and Valence;

* Hol., 238; year 1454-5.

+Talbot was created Earl of Wexford and Waterford in 1446. Wexford was sometimes written Washford, even so late as the time of Sir William Temple; see my Memoirs of him, i. 384,

Lord Talbot* of Goodrig and Urchinfield,

Lord Strange† of Blackmere, Lord Verdunt of Alton, Lord Cromwell of Wingfield, Lord Furnival of Sheffield, The thrice victorious Lord of Falconbridge;

Knight of the noble order of St. George,‡

Worthy St. Michael, and the golden fleece;
Great Mareshal to Henry the Sixth,

Of all his wars within the realms of France."

This enumeration of titles and honours is exactly conformable to a monumental inscription, said by Brooke, the herald, to have existed at Rouen ; but this herald was imposed upon, and the enumeration is erroneous in the particulars which I have distinguished.

It is as difficult to imagine how Shakspeare got that part of this "stately style" which is correct, as to account for its errors; I have made out the baronies, by the help of Sir Harris Nicolas, but there was no such aid in Shakspeare's time, and I

Richard Lord Talbot, father of the Earl, had been summoned to parliament as Lord Talbot de Godricke Castle (Goderich), in 1837. I find nothing of Urchinfield.

+ Shrewsbury derived this barony from his mother, heiress of John Lord Strange.

The Earl married Maud de Neville, heiress of Thomas, fifth Lord Furnival, and was summoned by that barony in right of his wife. That Thomas, or a former Baron Furnival, had married the heiress of Verdun, whence that title may be supposed to have descended through the Furnivals to the Talbots.

cannot find the enumeration in any printed book to which Shakspeare had access.*

In the next act† the chronology makes an attempt to right itself, by carrying us back to the year 1436, when soon after the death of the Duke of Bedford, the Parisians returned under the allegiance of their native king.‡

66

Charles. 'Tis said the stout Parisians do revolt,

And turn again unto the warlike French."

But then comes an event which happened in the A messenger announces

year 1430.

"The English army that divided was

Into two parts, is now conjoined in one,
And means to give you battle presently."

Though I cannot identify the operation here referred to, the poet intended it for one that immediately preceded the capture of Joan, which occurs in the next scene, after a fight "hand to hand' with York. According to Holinshed, this important event occurred in a slight affair; and,

* I suppose that Brooke's work is the tract printed after this play, in which Malone says he found the titles taken from the monumental plate at Rouen; but Talbot was buried at Whitchurch, in Shropshire, where there is, or was, a correct description of him.. - See Vincent upon Brooke, p. 451-4, and Camden's Shropshire, i. 659.

+ Act v. Sc. 2.

Hol. 186; Sismondi xiii. 273.

certainly, York had no part in it; and the Duke of Burgundy, whom the Joan of the play converts to the French side, commanded the force by a party of which she was made prisoner.*

There is, I fear, good historical authority for the condemnation of this singular woman to be burned as a witch. But this barbarous sentence was passed and executed under the regency of the Duke of Bedford.

I now return to the domestic affairs related in this play. We have already heard of Gloucester's intention to look to the condition of the Tower of London. He now comes to execute this intention; but, though he is announced as Lord Protector, Woodville, the governor, refuses him admittance, in consequence of orders from the Cardinal of Winchester. Winchester himself comes in, with a following of men in tawny coats; a most undignified colloquy is held between the two magnates; Gloucester, with his men in blue coats, attacks the prelate and his party, till the Mayor of London comes, and charges both to keep the peace.

There is a foundation in the Chronicles for this story; for Gloucester, on a subsequent occasion, made this one of his charges against the Cardinal :— * Hol., 169, 170; Monst., ii. 542. + Sc. 4; Hol., 171; Monst., iii. 8.

Act i. Sc. 3.