• The materials for afcertaining the order in which his plays were written, are indeed fo few, that it is to be feared nothing very decifive can be produced on this fubject. In the following attempt to trace the progrefs of his dramatic art, probability alone is pretended to. The filence and inaccuracy of those persons who, after his death, had the revifal of his papers, will, perhaps, for ever prevent our attaining to any thing like proof on this head. Little then remains, but to collect into one view, from his feveral dramas, and from the ancient tracts in which they are mentioned, or alluded to, all the circumftances that can throw any light on this new and curious inquiry. From thefe circumftances, and from the entries in the books of the Stationers Company, extracted, and now first published by Mr. Steevens (to whom every admirer of Shakspeare has the highest obligations), it is probable that the plays attributed to our Author were nearly written in the following fucceffion, which, though it cannot at this day be afcertained to be their true order, may yet be confidered as approaching nearer to it than any which has been obferved in the various editions of his works. The rejected plays are here enumerated with the rest; but no opinion is thereby meant to be given concerning their authenticity. Of the nineteen genuine plays, which were not printed in our Author's life-time, the majority of them were, I believe, late compofitions. The following arrangement is, in fome meafure, formed on this idea.

The dates of the feveral plays are arranged by Mr. Malone in the following order:

N. B. The rejected plays, which had been admitted in the 3d and 4th editions of the laft century, and alfo by Mr. Rowe, are, in the following lift, marked by Italics; and those which were not printed till after the Author's death, and made their first appearance in the folio edition of his plays in 1623, are diftinguished by an afterisk.

1. Titus Andronicus, 1589. [This play, though admitted by all the Editors, yet is generally fuppofed to be fpurious.] 2. Love's Labour Loft, 1591. 3. Firft Part of King Henry VI. 1591. 4. Second Part of Henry VI. 1591. 5. Third Part of ditto, 1592. 6. Pericles, 1592. 7. Locrine, 1593. 8. * The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 1593 9. The Winter's Tale, 1594. 10. Midfummer Night's Dream, 1595. 11. Romeo and Juliet, 1595. 12. The Comedy of Errors, 1596. 13. Hamlet, 1596. 14. King John, 1596. * 15. King Richard the IId. 1597. 16. King Richard the IIId. 1597. 17. First Part of King Henry IV. 1597. 18. Merchant of Venice, 1598. 19. * All's Well that Ends Well, 1598. 20. Sir John Oldcafile, 1598. 21. Second Part of King Henry IV. 1598. 22. King Henry V. 1599. 23. The Puritan, 1600.

24. Much-ado about Nothing, 1600. 25. * As you like it, 1600. 26. Merry Wives of Windfor, 1661. * 27. King Henry VIII. 1601. 28. Life and Death of Lord Cromwell, 1602. 29. Troi lus and Creffida, 1602. 30 Measure for Measure, 1603. 31. Cymbeline, 1604. 32 The London Prodigal, 1605. 33. King Lear, 1605. 34. Macbeth, 1606. 35. * The Taming of the Shrew, 1606. 36. Julius Cælar, 1607. 37. A Yorkshire Tragedy, 1608. 38. * Anthony and Cleopatra, 1608. 39. Coriolanus, 1609. 40. Timon of Athens, 1610. 41. Othello, 1611. * *The Tempeft, 1612. 43. Twelfth Night, 1614.'

42.

*

We muft not follow this ingenious Writer through every part of his elaborate enquiry,-in which we find much curious cri ticism interfperfed with a number of entertaining anecdotes:but we cannot take our leave of Mr. Malone, without prefent. ing a fpecimen or two of his manner of treating the subject. We shall produce his account of Titus Andronicus and Mac

beth.

In what year our Author began to write for the stage, or which was his firft performance, has not been hitherto afcertained. And indeed we have fo few lights to direct our enqui ries, that any fpeculation on this fubject may appear an idle expence of time. But the method which has been already marked out, requires that fuch facts should be mentioned as may serve in any manner to elucidate these points.

Shakspeare was born on the 23d of April 1564, and was probably married in, or before September 1582; his eldest daughter Sufanna having been baptifed on the 26th of May 1583. At what time he left Warwickshire, or was firft employed in the play-houfe, tradition doth not inform us. However, as his fon Samuel and his daughter Judith were baptifed at Stratford Feb. 2, 1584-5, we may prefume that he had not left the country at that time.

He could not have wanted an easy introduction to the thea tre, for Thomas Green, a celebrated comedian, was his townsman, and, probably, his relation; and Michael Drayton was likewife born in Warwickshire: the latter was nearly of his own age, and both were in fome degree of reputation foon after the year 1590. If I were to indulge a conjecture, the middle of the year 1591 I fhould name as the era when our Author commenced a writer for the stage; at which time he was somewhat more than twenty-feven years of age. The reasons that induce me to fix on that period are thefe: In Webbe's Difcourfe of English Poetry, published in 1586, we meet with the names of moft of the celebrated poets of that time, particularly those of George Whetstone and Antony Munday, who were dramatic writers; but we find no trace of our Author, or any of his

works. Three years afterwards Puttenham printed his Art of English Poefy; and in that work alfo we look in vain for the name of Shakspeare. Sir John Harrington, in his Apologie for Poetry, prefixed to the Tranflation of Arioflo (which was entered in the Stationers' books, Feb. 26, 1590-1, in which year it was printed), takes occafion to speak of the theatre, and mentions fome of the celebrated dramas of that time; but says not a word of Shakspeare or any of his plays. If even Love's Labour Loft had then appeared, which was probably his firft dramatic compofition, is it imaginable that Harrington fhould have mentioned the Cambridge Pedantius, and The Play of the Cards (which laft he tells us was a London comedy), and have paffed by, unnoticed, the new prodigy of the dramatic world?

However, that Shakspeare had commenced a writer for the ftage, and even excited the jealousy of his contemporaries, before Sept. 1592, is now decifively proved by a paffage, extracted by Mr. Tyrwhitt from Robert Greene's Groatsworth of Wit bought with a Million of Repentance*, in which there is an evident allufion to our Author's name, as well as to one of his plays.

The paffage to which this obfervation refers is too curious to be omitted; and we shall present our Readers with Mr. Tyrwhitt's own account of it. Though the objections which have been raised to the genuineness of the three plays of Henry VIth have been fully confidered and anfwered by Dr. Johnson, it may not be amifs to add here, from a contemporary writer, a paffage which not only points. at Shakspeare as the author of them, but alfo fhews, that however meanly we may now think of them, in comparifon with his later productions, they had, at the time of their appearance, a fufficient degree of excellence to alarm the jealoufy of the older play-wrights. The paffage, to which I refer, is in a pamphlet entitled Greene's Greatfworth of Witte. fuppofed to have been written by that volumi. nous author Robert Greene, M. A. and faid in the title page to be published at his dying request; probably about 1592. The conclufion of this piece is an addrefs to his brother-poets, to diffuade them from writing any more for the ftage, on account of the ill-treatment which they were used to receive from the players. "Trust them not (says he), for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygres Head wrapt in a Player's Hyde, fuppofes that he is as well able to bombafle out a blancke verfe as the bett of you; and being an abfolute Johannes Fac-totum, is in his own conceit the only SHAKE SCENE in the countrey." There can be no doubt, I think, that Shakspeare is alluded to by the expression Shake-scene, or that his Tygres Head wrapt in a Player's Hyde is a parody upon the following line of York's fpeech to Margaret, in Third Part of Henry VI. Að I. Scene 4th.

"Oh Tygres Heart rapt in a Woman's Hide!"

[Vol. vi, p. 566.]

At what time foever he became acquainted with the theatre, we may presume that he had not compofed his first play long before it was acted; for being early encumbered with a young family, and not in very affluent circumftances, it is improbable that he should have fuffered it to lie in his clofet, without endeavouring to derive from it fome profit; and in the miferable ftate of the drama in those days, the meaneft of his genuine plays must have been a valuable acquifition, and would hardly have been refused by any of the managers of our ancient

Titus Andronicus appears to have been afted before any other play attributed to Shakspeare: and, therefore, as it hath been admitted into all the editions of his works, whoever might have been the writer of it, it is entitled to the first place in this general lift of his dramas. From Ben Jonfon's induction to Bartholomew Fair 1614, we learn that Andronicus had been exhibited twenty-five or thirty years before; that is, at the lowest computation, in 1589: or, taking a middle period (which is perhaps more juft), in 1587. In our Author's dedication of Venus and Adonis to lord Southampton, in 1593, he tells us, as Mr. Steevens hath obferved, that that poem was "the firft Heir of his Invention," and if we were fure that it was published immediately, or foon after it was written, it would at once prove Titus Andronicus not to be the production of Shakspeare, and nearly afcertain the time when he commenced a dramatic writer. But we do not know what interval might have elapsed between the compofition and the publication of that poem. There is indeed a paffage in the dedication already mentioned; which, if there were not fuch decifive evidence on the other fide, might induce us to think that he had not written in 1593 any piece of more dignity than a love-poem; or at least any on which he himself fet a value. If (fays he to his noble patron) your honour feem but pleafed, I account myself highly praised; and vow to take advantage of all idle hours till I have honoured you with fome graver labour."

A book entitled "A Noble Roman Hiftory of Titus Andronicus" (without any Author's name) was entered at Stationers Hall, Feb. 6, 1593-4. This I fuppofe to have been the play as it was printed in that year, and acted (according to Langbaine, who alone appears to have feen the first edition) by the fervants of the earls of Pembroke, Derby, and Effex.

Mr. Pope thought that Titus Andronicus was not written by Shakspeare; becaufe Ben Jonfon spoke flightingly of it while Shakspeare was yet living. This argument perhaps will not bear a very strict examination. If it were allowed to have any validity, many of our Author's genuine productions must be excluded from his works; for Ben has ridiculed feveral of his

C 3

dramas

dramas in the fame piece in which he hath mentioned Andronicus with contempt.

It has been faid, that Francis Meres, who, in 1598, enumerated this among our Author's plays, might have been misled by a title-page but we may prefume, that he was informed, or deceived, by fome other means; for Shakspeare's name is not in the title-page of that in 1611; and therefore we may conclude, it was not in the title-page of the edition of 1594, of which the other was probably a re-impreffion.

However (notwithstanding the authority of Meres), the high antiquity of the piece, its entry on the Stationers books, without the name of the writer, the regularity of the verfifica-. tion, the diffimilitude of the ftyle from that of thofe plays which were undoubtedly compofed by our Author, and the tradition mentioned by Ravenfcroft, at a period when fome of his contemporaries had not been long dead [viz. "that he had been told by fome, anciently converfant with the stage, that Andronicus was not originally Shakspeare's, but brought by a private author to be acted, and that he only gave some mastertouches to one or two of the principal parts or characters."]→ thefe circumftances render it highly improbable, that this play fhould have been the compofition of Shakspeare.'

Thefe remarks are acute and judicious, and conclude much against the authenticity of this play and yet, in fpite of evidence internal and external, a certain painful collator of par ticles and commas hath, through an old pair of fpectacles, which Tom Hearne had thrown afide as good for nothing, dif covered beauties and excellencies in Titus Andronicus, which had hitherto been invifible to mortal fight. On this wonderful difcovery, Mr. Malone indulges himself in a little pleasantry for which we refer to the book,

Concerning the date of Macbeth, Mr. Malone offers the following ingenious conjectures.

From a book entitled Rex Platonicus, cited by Dr. Farmer, we learn, that King James, when he vifited Oxford in 1605, was addreffed by three ftudents of St. John's College, who perfonated the three Weird Sifters; and recited a fhort dramatic poem, founded on the prediction of thofe Sybils (as the Author calls them), relative to Banquo and Macbeth.

Dr. Farmer is of opinion, that this little piece preceded Shakspeare's play; a fuppofition which is ftrengthened by the filence of the Author of Rex Platonicus, who, if Macbeth had then appeared on the ftage, would probably have mentioned fomething of it. It fhould likewife be remembered, that there fubfifted, at that time, a fpirit of oppofition between the regular players and the academics of the two Univerfities; the latter of whom frequently acted plays both in Latin and English, and

feem