two-the former being somewhat disfigured by conceits and obscurities. The character of Constance, though founded upon reality, is not the less poetical. Mrs. Jameson* is a little too enthusiastic about the historical princess; but her highly-wrought notice of Shakspeare's Constance is exceedingly attractive. Notwithstanding the command to put Arthur to death, the character of John is not brought out by the dramatist in the singularly odious light in which all modern historians have taught us to view it; still there is nothing inconsistent either with nature or with history. Possibly, a tradition from the revolting barons, and the writings of ecclesiastics, who have the great advantage of recording the deeds of their enemy, may have exaggerated the faults of this unfortunate king. The merits of this play consist chiefly in the scenes, as distinguished from the plot, and the diserimination of character. In some of these scenes there is admirable force and beauty; and I should indeed be sorry that the doubts which I have raised of their historical accuracy should lessen the pleasure of any one in reading them. * Characteristics of Women, ii. 238. 34 RICHARD II. BETWEEN John and Richard the Second four reigns intervened, occupying a period of an hundred and seventy years, which might have furnished to Shakspeare some interesting dramatic incidents. But he probably chose John, not so much for the peculiar interest afforded by the transactions of his reign-for, in truth, we have seen that he omitted the most interesting-but because he found a plot ready to his hand in the old play. The opinion of the Schlegels, that, in the series of plays beginning with Richard the Second and ending with Richard the Third, the poet intended to teach history on the stage, is hardly consistent with the order in which the plays were written, differing as it does from the order of the reigns described.* * According to Malone, the historical plays were written in the following order:-" Henry the Sixth," "Richard the Second," "Richard the Third," "Henry the Fourth," Henry the Fifth," "Henry the Eighth," John is not in the list, but must have been contemporaneous with the first part of" Henry the Fourth." The play of "Richard the Second," like the former, professes to represent "the life and death of the king" whose name it bears; but, in this instance, the action does not begin until the twentieth of the twenty-two years which the reign occupied. Mr. Payne Collier has lately discovered that a play representing the earlier history of Richard the Second, and especially the vagaries and death of Jack Straw, was performed at Shakspeare's theatre in the year 1611.* Mr. Collier thinks that this play was certainly not the work of Shakspeare; but my friend Mr. Amyot, whose letter Mr. Collier publishes, conceives that the play exhibited in 1611 "was only a first part of Shakspeare's play, and might not improbably have been written by Shakspeare himself." A question more interesting to us is, whether it was our play of "Richard the Second,” the causing of which to be enacted was an article in the indictment against Sir Gilly Meyrick, in 1600. As I have no facts to add to those which are given in the notes of Malone and others,† I will only quote a speech of the Attorney-General Bacon, from the latest edition of "The State Trials :". *New Particulars regarding the Works of Shakspeare, 1836, p. 9. ↑ Bosw., ii. 324, xvi. 3. 66 ་ And the story of Henry the Fourth being set forth in a play, and in that play there being set forth the killing of the king upon a stage, the Friday before, Sir Gilly and some others of the Earl's train (of Essex) having the humour to see a play, they must needs have the play of Henry the Fourth.' The players told them that was stale, they should get nothing by playing of that; but no play else would serve, and Sir Gilly gives forty shillings to Phillips, the player, to play this, besides whatever he could get.' "'* 66 So earnest was he," it is added in Bacon's account of these proceedings, "to satisfy his eyes with the sight of this tragedy, which he thought soon after his lordship should bring from the stage to the state, but that God turned it upon their own heads."+ Assuredly the killing of the king is exhibited in Shakspeare's "Richard the Second;" but it has been observed that this could hardly be the play to which so much objection was made by the crown lawyers of Elizabeth, seeing that "there are expressions in it which strongly inculcate the doctrine of indefeasible right.” ‡ This objection will be better appreciated as we go through the play. It commences with the accusation of Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, § by Henry (surnamed Boling† Montagu's Bacon, vi. 363, 4. * St. Tr. i. 1445, 43. Eliz. Farmer, in Bosw., xvi. 4. § Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham and Duke of broke) * Earl of Derby and Duke of Hereford, eldest son of John of Gaunt. After a great deal of "" 'Woman's war And bitter clamour of two eager tongues." the accusation is set forth thus: Boling. Look, what I speak my life shall prove it true; That Mowbray hath received eight thousand nobles, Besides I say, and will in battle prove, Or here, or elsewhere, to the farthest verge That ever was survey'd by English eye, That all these treasons, for these eighteen years, Complotted and contrived in this land, Fetch from false Mowbray their first head and spring. Further I say, and further will maintain, Upon his bad life to make all this good, And consequently, like a traitor coward, Sluiced out his innocent soul through streams of blood.”† great Norfolk; so created as the grandson of Thomas Brotherton, Duke of Norfolk The Howards are descended from one of his daughters. Margaret * It is doubted whether he had this appellation at this time.-Bosw., 9. + Act i. Sc. 1. *Eldest son of the second marriage of Edward I |