rectly named among the slain, though there is as little ground for ascribing Clifford's death to York, as there is for attributing that of Somerset to his infant son Richard. The son of Hotspur, too,+ was slain in this battle, fighting for the house of Lancaster, and Humphrey Stafford, the son of the Duke of Buckingham.‡

Something, perhaps, must be said of the persons who will not reappear in the third part-Gloucester, Winchester, Suffolk, Somerset, and Clifford. No one of these exhibits a dramatic character of much importance, unless it be Winchester when on the point of death. I have already said that it is doubtful whether history verifies the odious character assigned to the cardinal by the poet. And the same doubt may be reversed as to the Duke Humphrey, who was, at least, ambitious in a degree not apparent in the play. The truth is that neither he nor any other of the personages of this play (with the one exception noticed), displays, in any remarkable way, the hand of the poet, It is clear that Shakspeare intends to represent Duke Humphrey as worthy of the epithet attached to his name; but goodness is less poetical than despair.

*The warning to him to shun castles is mentioned in Hol., 240.

+ Henry, second Earl of Northumberland.

+ Hol., 240.

VOL. I.

The character of Suffolk as an ambitious profligate is well sustained; but there is not sufficient evidence to impute it to the man. Of Somerset we really know nothing but that he was an unfortunate commander, and so he is represented.

END OF VOLUME I.