"That Richard be restored to his blood....
And rise created princely Duke of York."

(III. i. 159, 173.)

All shout in seeming unison, but precisely like the Cardinal before, Somerset, remembering the Temple Garden scene, mutters a dissent:

"All.

Welcome, high prince, the mighty Duke of York! Som. [Aside]. Perish, base prince, ignoble Duke of York!"

(III. i. 177, 178.)

The evident use of stichomythia, together with word and sound repetition in both instances, heightens the intended antithesis. But, as in others of Shakespeare's early plays, it is an effect of opera rather than that of pure drama.

The young King is not introduced until the Parliament scene in Act III., although his name is given to the play in its present form. And justly so, as in the title rôle of the Merchant of Venice and of Julius Caesar. All the dissensions among the nobles, those of Gloucester and Winchester, and of Plantagenet and Somerset, cluster about Henry. The Talbot portion has become subordinated to him, as it becomes associated with him and his history. The spirit of the King's weakness, of his scrupulous religiousness, of his oratorical, poetic, and philosophic gifts, emphasized in Parts II. and III., are all intimated in Part I. As the struggles of the Parliament scene rage about him, his first speech, chiding Gloucester and Winchester, reveals his delicate and susceptible nature, finding expression in moralizings and dissertations :

And again :

"O, what a scandal is it to our crown,

That two such noble peers as ye should jar!"

(III. i. 69, 70.)

"O, how this discord doth afflict my soul!" (III. i. 106.)

But he is both too young and too weak to effect a conclusion. One act later (IV. i.), when the Plantagenet and Somerset quarrel is repeated in miniature by their followers,

Vernon and Bassett, the King fearful for all differences of opinion, again strives for quiet, but as a poet :

"Let me be umpire in this doubtful strife.

I see no reason, if I wear this rose [Putting on a red rose],

That any one should therefore be suspicious,

I more incline to Somerset than York:

Both are my kinsmen, and I love them both." (IV. i. 151-155.)

This is the fatal action that determines York's hostility to the King-an opposition that ends only with the death of Richard on Bosworthfield. Small wonder there is the comment of Warwick:

"My Lord of York, I promise you, the king
Prettily, methought, did play the orator."

To which York replies:

"And so he did; but yet I like it not,

In that he wears the badge of Somerset.
Warwick. Tush, that was but his fancy, blame him not;
I dare presume, sweet prince, he thought no harm.
An if I wist he hid-but let it rest; ..."

York.

(IV. ii. 174-180.)

It is the same "sweet prince," who "thought no harm," that in Part III., in another "fancy," could sit on a hillside, and wish himself, not with poor brain-troubled Lear, "every inch a king," but a silly swain:

"Ah, what a life were this! how sweet! how lovely!"

(II. v. 41.)

Do we ask about the authorship of the play? We cannot be too sure. There are too many difficulties on all sides to be too dogmatic in any conclusion. It seems folly to suppose with Mr. Fleay' that individual lines and scenes can with any degree of certainty be awarded to A and B and C and

1F. G. Fleay: A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, 1886.

2

D and E. Mr. Richard Grant White,' like others, became absorbed in the many delicate questions involved in Parts II. and III. and found little space to devote to Part I., but adhered in a general way to A, B, C, and D. Mr. Swinburne's eloquent denunciation is the feeling of a poet, but is clearly susceptible of limitations. As Professor Sarrazin3 has pointed out, the Talbot figure in the play seems to have derived an impulse from Marlowe's Tamburlaine, and the tenderness of father and son recalls episodes in the Spanish Tragedy of Kyd. Also there is a wooing of another Margaret by proxy in Greene's Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay; and the sentiment of the couplet,

"She's beautiful and therefore to be woo'd;
She is a woman, therefore to be won".

(V. iii. 77, 98.)

again repeated in both Titus Andronicus and Richard III., has been traced to Greene's Planetomachia. But we are not bound to conclude joint authorship of all these and others, but only influence, as Prof. Sarrazin wisely suggests. But he, it seems, returning to the view of Charles Knight,' wishes to accept every word, every line and every circumstance, as traceable to Shakespeare. This, in turn, may go too far; for certain parts of the French and Joan scenes at least may have been left virtually unchanged, if we accept the intervention of an older Talbot play. Mr. Dowden believes it

5

1R. G. White: Essay on the authorship of the three parts of King Henry the Sixth; Vol. VII of "Works of William Shakespeare," 1859.

'A. C. Swinburne: A Study of Shakespeare, 3d edition, 1895.

3 G. Sarrazin: William Shakespeare's Lehrjahre, 1897.

Charles Knight: Pictorial Edition of Shakespeare, Supplement to Histories, Vol. II.

Edward Dowden: Shakspere Primer, 1877, p. 62. In the Introduction to Shakespeare, 1895, Mr. Dowden expresses the same opinion: "The authorship of the first part of Henry VI. is not ascertained; it probably received additions from Shakespeare's hand; ... it is essentially pre-Shakespearian."

Mr. Sidney Lee, in his Life of William Shakespeare, 1898, p. 59, helps us but little further: "In "The First Part of Henry VI.' the scene in the Temple Gardens, where white and red roses are plucked as emblems by

"is almost certainly an old play, by one or more authors, which . . . . had received touches from the hands of Shakspere," but enters upon no details. Other recent commentators follow in the paths of the older ones, get around the obstructions they see ahead as best they can, and by ignoring the difficulties, have little or nothing to say.

My own endeavor has been to see what can be found, by an analysis, in the play itself. If the apparent results, gained by a study of the structure, can be accepted; if there be an original Talbot portion, based either on an older play or directly upon the chronicles, adapted and strengthened by dramatic emphasis upon Talbot's character and Talbot's death, and expanded into a Henry VI. drama, and thus given a place in a larger tetralogy ;-the person ordering this material and effecting these changes, in other words, the real creator of the play as it stands, could well be Shakespeare near the beginning of his art. At least one principle is clear. By a study of the earliest plays attributed to Shakespeare, for themselves and in their historic and comparative relations, there will be found to be more and more points in common with the Shakespeare of the later plays;-not yet in the fulness of his power, but at any rate with suggestionsof the method, structure, habit of thought, characterization, and art of the master to be.

JOHN BELL HENNEMAN.

the rival political parties (Act II., sc. iv.), the dying speech of Mortimer, and perhaps the wooing of Margaret by Suffolk, alone bear the impress of his style." This is in substantial agreement with what Mr. Dowden had already said in his Primer. It is unfortunate that neither Mr. Dowden's nor Mr. Lee's plan permitted the critic to enter upon a detailed discussion of the play.

XIII. THE GERMANIC SUFFIX -AR-JA.

Few of the Germanic suffixes have recently been discussed so often as the suffix -ar-ja, the most widespread and extensively used suffix of the Germanic dialects. Grimm's theory that this suffix is identical with the suffix -ja plus an additional -r, which, in a modified form, was adopted by Kluge in the first edition of his Stammbildungslehre, has been given up and most scholars seem now to agree with Sütterlin-Möller's explanation, according to which -ar-ja was borrowed from the Latin arius. This borrowing, as Orthoff suggests, must have been done at two different periods, because it would explain the twofold form -ari and -ări in O.H.G.

While this explanation appears quite plausible from a linguistic point of view, serious objections must be raised against it as soon as we examine it more closely. For the question arises at once when and in what way was our suffix borrowed from the Latin? Sütterlin in his little book, Geschichte der Nomina Agentis im Germanischen (p. 78 f.), answers this question as follows: "Das germanische Suffix seinerseits aber ist-wie wol auch das Keltische-aus dem Lateinischen entnommen. Auch hier lässt sich eine Reihe von Wörtern anführen, welche leicht aus dem einen Sprachgebiet in das andere hinüberleiten. Es sind meistens termini technici, für die dem alten Deutschen die einheimische Bezeichnung fehlte." The words which Sütterlin then quotes in support of his theory are all terms which belong to the sphere of clerical learning, few of which, like kellnári, chamerári, cancelári, notári and schuolare became afterwards terms of common life. It is true that in the older documents of the various Germanic dialects we find few words containing

1 Cf. Wilmanns, Deutsche Grammatik, 11, 282 ff.