few years later, GEORGE CHALMERS published his Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the Shakespeare Papers, which was not so much an Apology for the Believers in the Ireland forgeries,' as a cloak to cover a violent attack on STEEVENS and MALONE. CHALMERS, also, made a chronological list of the plays, pointing out various errors in MALONE'S list, and, among other changes, assigned the date, 1595, to Richard III.; MALONE evidently felt some force in the argument of CHALMERS, and accordingly the date is changed to 1593 in the Variorum of 1821, which may be regarded as MALONE'S Second Edition, edited, after his death, by BOSWELL, the son of Johnson's biographer, and Malone's literary executor. In the Appendix, under Date of Composition, will be found, in the present volume, a list of the dates assigned by various editors and commentators, ranging from 1590 to 1597. The consensus of opinion is in favour of 1593 or 1594.

It has been so frequently asserted that the Chronicles of Hall and of Holinshed are the sources whence SHAKESPEARE derives the plots of his Historical Plays, that a repetition of the assertion seems almost superfluous. Indeed, these Chronicles were the basis of all the historical plays founded on the periods which they covered. Resemblances between Richard III. and the older Latin play, Richardus Tertius, acted at Oxford, and also The True Tragedy of Richard the Third, 1594, are due, not so much to any familiarity of SHAKESPEARE with the works of his predecessors, as to the fact that they may be all referred to a common source. As an Appendix to Richard III., in the Variorum of 1821, BOSWELL reprinted a part of the older play: The True Tragedie of Richard the Third. Earlier than this, STEEVENS had called attention to the entry of this play, on the Stationers' Registers, but made no mention of having seen the play itself. At the close of his reprint, BOSWELL has the following note: 'I have not thought it necessary to point out the particular passages in which a resemblance may be traced between the foregoing drama and Richard III.; but, I think, the reader will be satisfied that SHAKESPEARE must have seen it when he sat down to the composition of his own play.'

A. SKOTTOWE, in his Life of Shakespeare, a few years later, and BARRON FIELD, who edited the play for the Shakespeare Society in 1844, agree with BosWELL that there are points common to both plays, for which, their common source, the Chronicles, will not account. FIELD, in his Introduction, says: "The following line in the Battle-scene is, in my opinion, quite enough to show that SHAKESPEARE considered Nature, as Molière said of Wit, as his property, and that he had a right to seize it wherever he found it: "King. A horse, a horse, a fresh horse." COLLIER, on the other hand, could see no resemblances but such as were accidental and trivial. The point wherein COLLIER thought the two most nearly approached each other was the incident, just before

the murder of the Princes, of Richard's taking a page into his confidence; but FIELD clearly shows that both dramatists were here evidently following either More's Life of Richard the Third, or Holinshed, who copied More.

It is, I think, needless to discuss whence Holinshed derived his material. The sources of his Chronicles were, naturally, the works of his predecessors, and, for SHAKESPEARE, the question of their truth as infallible history was, doubtless, of small moment; that he regarded them but lightly is shown by the many liberties he took with them, compressing years into weeks and stretching weeks out to months, mingling characters and events which were never so placed. It must, however, be borne in mind that SHAKESPEARE wrote for the stage; and the machinery of his mimic fate must proceed in its own way and work out its own ends.

An extract from an article by E. E. ROSE on Shakespeare and History is an admirable exposition of SHAKESPEARE'S attitude towards the Chronicles, and is given on p. 579 in the Appendix. It deserves the careful consideration of those who question the introduction, by the dramatist, of such scenes as the wooing of Anne by Richard, the curse of Margaret, and of Clarence's dream.

The attitude of the Chroniclers themselves toward the temper of the time should be no less taken into account. At the close of the long and bitter contention of the two houses of York and Lancaster, the most dangerous of the Yorkists had been defeated and the Lancastrians held undisputed sway; what then more natural than that the character of the defeated tyrant should be blackened as much as possible, in order to flatter and extol the conqueror? The sympathy of all classes was deeply Lancastrian; hence the number of plays and poems on the subject of Richard's usurpation and of his miserable downfall. Seven versions of the story are extant, all of them antedating SHAKESPEARE'S play. Scarcely one has survived in popular remembrance. SHAKESPEARE alone has made Richard III. live; the character drawn by that mighty hand is the one which all of us remember and accept as true, in spite of all apologists. Whether or not it be Richard's true character need concern no reader of the play. Sir GEORGE BUCK made an heroic effort to clear the reputation of Richard from the many stains cast upon it by the Chroniclers, as did also HORACE WALPOLE and Miss CAROLINE HALSTED, and, in our own day, Sir CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, but the remarks by quaint and venerable FULLER, on Buck's Life of Richard III., are so delightfully characteristic, and, at the same time, seem to apply so fitly to other apologists, that I cannot forbear quoting them in full:

'Duke Richard was low in stature, crook-backed, with one shoulder 'higher than the other, having a prominent gobber-tooth, a warlike ' countenance which well enough became a soldier. Yet a modern ' author, in a book by him lately set forth, eveneth his shoulders, smooth'eth his back, planeth his teeth, maketh him in all points a comely and 'beautiful person. Nor stoppeth he here; but, proceeding from his 'naturals to his morals, maketh him as virtuous as handsome, which 'in some sense may be allowed to be true; concealing most, denying some, 'defending others, of his foulest facts, wherewith in all ages since he 'standeth charged on record. For mine own part, I confess it no heresy 'to maintain a paradox in history, nor am I such an enemy to wit as not 'to allow it leave harmlessly to disport itself, for its own content, and 'the delight of others. Thus Cardan hath written his Encomium 'Neronis; and others (best husbandmen who can improve the barrenest 'ground!) have by art endeavoured to praise as improbable subjects. 'But when men shall do it cordially, in sober sadness, to pervert people's 'judgments, and therein go against all received records, I say, singularity 'is the least fault can be laid to such men's charge. Besides, there are 'some birds, "sea-pies" by name, who cannot rise except it be by flying ' against the wind, as some hope to achieve their advancement by being 'contrary and paradoxical in judgment to all before them' (Church History, i, 528).

I have thought it well to include the older play, The True Tragedie of Richard the Third, in the Appendix, as several references are made to it in the Commentary; it is reproduced from that edited by BARRON FIELD for the Shakespeare Society in 1844. Only those notes are retained wherein FIELD calls attention to a similarity to SHAKESPEARE'S play, or to an apparent corruption of the text.

I have not thought it necessary to reprint CIBBER'S Version of Richard III., but have compiled a table, showing Cibber's additions, for which absolute completeness is not claimed; it is extremely difficult at times to decide just what shall be counted as wholly or partly CIBBER's. Thus, in Act II, scene i, he gives these lines to Anne:

'If ever he have child, abortive be it,
Prodigious and untimely brought to light,

Whose hideous form, whose most unnatural aspect,
May fright the hopeful mother at her view,

And that be heir to his unhappiness.'

The following is SHAKESPEARE'S:

'If ever he have child, abortive be it,

Prodigious and untimely brought to light,
Whose ugly and unnatural aspect

May fright the hopeful mother at the view;
And that be heir to his unhappiness.'

Wherefore, only those lines which contained a decided change of sense have been included, in the table, as additions due to CIBBER, which is perhaps as near as can be attained in any attempt to disentangle the various threads in a network thus intricate.

It is, however, well to remember that CIBBER'S Version held supreme sway on the stage for over one hundred years (from 1700 until 1845)— longer, indeed, than SHAKESPEARE's own play (1593 to 1700). CIBBER'S Richard was truer to the Richard of the Chronicles than SHAKESPEARE'S; he was a villainous usurper, keeping the rightful sovereign from the throne. But it is, I think, not without significance that, while on the stage, CIBBER'S Richard received an applause denied to SHAKESPEARE, the editors of Shakespeare altogether ignored CIBBER'S Version, beyond a contemptuous reference by WARBURTON to a change made in the text, and STEEVENS'S words of praise for certain of Cibber's omissions.

It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge my gratitude to those who have shown much courtesy to me in the work of preparing these pages-first and foremost, to him who has ever been my most patient guide and counsellor, I can but echo the words of Duncan: 'More is thy due than more than all can pay.' To Mr CHARLES E. DANA, for many valuable references to Heraldry and Armour; to DR MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., Librarian of the University of Pennsylvania; to MR GEORGE M. ABBOT and his efficient assistant, MR D. C. KNOBLAUCH, of the Philadelphia Library, for unfailing attention to many demands.

September, 1908

H. H. F., Jr.

RICHARD THE THIRD