— 2

subject from the historical works at his hands, the chronicles of Hall, and especially of Holinshed. the latter of which he sometimes follows so closely that he merely puts the prose of the chroni- cler into harmonious verses. Holinshed's work is but a compilation of older writings,(Pauli, Auf- sätze, und Oechelhäuser, Essay über Richard III.) put together without any criticism, and so it sometimes happens that the same facts are related differently in different places, and sometimes are in open contradiction with one another. This is in no portion of his chronicle more evident thau in those chapters referring to Richard III. Whilst in the first part of Richard's life up to the death af Edward IV. he appears only as the brave warrior, and clever leader, as the stout upholder, and chief supporter of the house of York, as the faithful companion, and adviser of his royal brother. he in the second part is painted with the blackest colours possible, as the bloody tyrant without a human feeling who does the evil because he delights in it. The reason for this is, that from the death of King Edward Holinshed is following the chronicle of Thomas More vritten about twenty four years after Richard's death. Thomas More seems to have availed himself of notes written down by bishop Morton of Ely, that most bitter enemy of Richard, and the great friend of Hen- ry VII. who loaded him with honours, made him one of his privy council archbishop of Canterbury. and lord high-chancellor of England. Now Shakespeare, in conceiving his Richard, followed the latter part of Holinshed, and in conformity with it painted also the early part of Richard's lifé, which, certainly, has not been to Richard's advantage. If, thus, he deviates from historical truth. and wrongs Richard'’s character, nobody, of course, will find fault with him for this. For the task of the dramatist is quite different from that of the historian. The historian has to represent persons and facts as they have been, without partiality, without adding or withholding anything, he has to give truth, and nothing but truth, and in order to find it out, he must investigate into the reports of all parties, and balance them conscienciously. The dramatist takes his subject from history, if he likes, conceives his characters, and develops them by a series of scenes that may either keep close to the history, or be a free invention of his genius. His object is to show how his hero, with his qualities, his passions and principles, must with necessity come to the tragical end. And this is what Shakespeare has done. He brings before our eyes the whole life of Richard. from his birth in the quiet castle of Fotheringay down to his early death in the roar of battle on Bosworth field, in a series of the most animated, and touching scenes. The leading facts of his life are linked together so as to form one uninterrupted chain, but the poet does not scruple to put facts into close, and intimate connexion, sometimes joining them in the same scene, which are separated from each other by years, or to alter the chronology of the facts, or to invent new scenes he considers necessary for the development of his characters, with all the freedom that, at. all times, has been granted to the dramatist. As one play was too small a frame to contain the whole picture of Richard's life, Shakespeare introduces him already in the two preceding plays of the series, the 2nd and the 3d part of Henry VI. Only if we take these two plays into account, only then the portrait of Richard is complete and comprehensible, without them, it would be, says a modern writer(R. Genée) on this subject, as if you were to cut a colossal statue from its pedestal, and to place it upon its own legs upon the ground. The two plays are the pedestal of Richard III, they are the introduction to it, paint some of his qualities, and his principles, for which there is no room in the play itself, and thus prepare the spectator or reader for what Ne may expect of Richard when these qualities and principles are called up for action.