the most excellent in both kinds for the stage: for Comedy witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love's Labour's Lost, his Love's Labour's Won (probably All's Well That Ends Well), his Midsummer Night's Dream and his Merchant of Venice; for Tragedy, his Richard the Second, Richard the Third, Henry the Fourth, King John, Titus Andronicus and his Romeo and Juliet ; by which twelve of the plays are certified to have been in existence before the end of the sixteenth century. There are also internal tests, such as the youthfulness or maturity of the thinking, though these are not so easy to apply. A test of great value has been discovered in the versification, that of the earlier being stiff and formal in comparison with that of the later plays, which is much more flowing and unconstrained; this freedom being secured by running on one line into another and by the use of weak and feminine endings, as they are called, by which the voice, as it utters the words, is carried trippingly into the next line. Of all such indications the minutest study has been made; and from them indispensable assistance is derived for following the development of the dramatist's mind and art.

Besides the chronological order, I venture to give an original and independent estimate of the comparative value of each play, though this is done with the consciousness that anything of the kind must be tentative and provisional, as even one's own estimate

may alter on closer acquaintance. Yet there is so much uncritical worship of everything proceeding from so great a genius that the general reader may be encouraged by such a recognition of varieties of value to read, with his own eyes and to trust his own judgment. If it be asked how the relative merits of so many pieces of high excellence can be determined, it may be answered that it can only be attempted after frequent reading of them all. The consent of the best judges must also be observed, though I have been guided by this only to a limited extent. The theme of a drama being ascertained, we must investigate how it has been worked out and with what effect, and whether all the materials have been brought into unity with this leading thought. Are the actions of the characters motived? and does the unfolding of the theme come to a harmonious and satisfying close? The number of striking and memorable characters is likewise a test, whether these be comic as in comedies, pathetic as in tragedies, or heroic as in histories. Fine passages, which one returns to read again and again, or would like to read to others, or which have so passed into the current speech of mankind as to be often quoted in speeches or sermons, books or conversation, supply an obvious guide, whether these be prolonged outbursts or figures of speech or little bits of proverbial wisdom. Such are some of the indications, of which one will in one case be more decisive and another in

another; but there will always remain plenty of room for difference of opinion.

A few notes on each play are added, which are not the product of the moment, but have slowly accumulated during the reading of years; and, since these are intended not for reading so much as for reference, I have not, in transcribing them, been careful to delete every phrase or remark that may have been already used in the preceding pages. In the order and the dates I have closely followed the arrangement adopted by Sir Sidney Lee, except at the very beginning, where we are obviously dealing with the work of the dramatist's apprentice hand; but an eye has been kept also on the conclusions of other authorities.

About 1590. Class D.

I. TITUS ANDRONICUS. This play is a dish of horrors. Yet, I imagine, it may have been Shakspeare's, written in imitation of similar work by others before he had framed his own conception of the drama. It is by no means commonplace. The force of the play lies in the incarnate devil Aaron.

2. THE FIRST PART OF KING HENRY THE SIXTH. About 1590. Class D. Subject, the Destruction of a Country by Internal Factions; see it expressed in the last lines of Act iv., Scene 3:

While the vulture of sedition

Feeds in the bosom of such great commanders,
Sleeping neglection doth betray to loss
The conquest of our scarce-cold conqueror.

The uncles and the great-uncles of the King, through strife among themselves, lose France. Talbot is a great character, but Joan of Arc is poorly conceived. There are no comic characters or scenes. The second Act is particularly good. It is not necessary to read any history of the time beforehand, everything being made intelligible by the drama itself; though this is not the case in others of the historical plays.

3. LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST. About 1591; revised 1597. Class B. Subject, Nature, though expelled with a fork, will always come back again. Execution in parts bright and strong; yet a great deal of mere verbal quibbling. There is one strong character, Biron, who sees through the fad from the first and criticizes life in a mocking spirit. Deep speculation on Words, which run away with Armado, make slaves of Holofernes and Sir Nathaniel, bowl-over Costard and Jacquenetta, but are wielded by Moth, who represents the pride of the young poet in his weapon, as well as his perception of the contrast in the world between words and things, learning and experience, study and action. Curious self-criticism, put into the mouth of Biron, near the end of the play, for the use of

Taffeta phrases, silken terms precise,
Three-piled hyperboles, spruce affectation,
Figures pedantical.

1591 or 1593.

Bright

4. Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA. Class D. Subject, Love and Friendship. and thin in execution; huddled up at the close. Julia a sunny creation. Proteus' name significant of the extravagances and changes of love. But Launce is the gem.

5. A COMEDY OF ERRORS. About 1591. Class D. A mere farce of incident without character. The jealous wife, Adriana, may have biographical significance, and the lines on liberty in Act I., Scene 1, hint the mature Shakspeare.

6. THE SECOND PART OF KING HENRY THE SIXTH. About 1592. Class C. The subject is Ambition's Ladder; or, if Henry be the hero, the subject may be the Unfitness of Feeble Piety for the Game of Life. This is a very powerful play. York is clearing all rivals and obstacles out of the way. Henry, though weak and bookish, yet is invested with a touching and benignant kingliness; what a contrast to his masculine, guilty Queen! The Cardinal, worldly and profane, is an impressive figure, especially in his end. Cade is but crudely conceived. The second Scene of the first Act is finely executed.