Shakespeare's Complete Works Volume 1 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 edition. Excerpt: ...was touched by him. The general spirit ofthe drama belongs to an older school than the Shaksperian, and it is a happiness not to have to ascribe to our greatest poet the crude and hateful handling of the character of Joan of Arc, excused though to some extent it may be by the concurrence of view in our old English chronicles." Malone was "decisively of opinion that this play was not written by Shakespeare," and that it was not by the same author or authors as the other two parts_ of Herlry VI Collier (2d ed.) considers that the single fact that the editors ofthe Ist folio printed the play "is suflicient to establish Shakespeare's claim to the authorship of it;" but he is inclined to the opinion that it was founded upon an earlier Play-T On the other hand, we have no reason for doubting that it was the present play.' Fleay (In/rad. in.571. Study, p. 30) says that it "certainly " was; but'the question cannot be settled in that dogmatic way. 1' At an earlier date (Annals of /re Stage, vol. iii. p. 145) he had said: "It is plausibly conjectured that Shakespeare never touched the Firxl Part ofl/mry V. as it stands in his works, and it is merely the old 1 play on the early events of that reign, which was most likely written about t 589." Knight believes that all three parts of Henry V. "are, in the strictest sense of the word, Shakspere's own plays;" and that "their supposed inferiority to his other'works, and their dissimilarities of style as compared with those works, are referable to other circumstances than that of their being the productions of an author or authors who preceded him." Verplanck agrees with Knight in accepting the three plays...