66

6

book speaks of the one-and-thirty years' space of Elizabeth's reign; and thus puts the date of the writing a year earlier than the printing. But we here look in vain for some other illustrious names besides those of Shakspere. Malone has not told us that not one of Shakspere's early dramatic contemporaries is mentioned -neither Marlowe, nor Greene, nor Peele, nor Kyd, nor Lyly. The author evidently derives his knowledge of poets and poesy" from a much earlier period than that in which he publishes. He does not mention Spenser by name, but he does "that other gentleman who wrote the lateShepherd's Calender.'" The Shepherd's Calendar' of Spenser was published in the year 1579. Malone goes on to argue that the omission of Shakspere's name, or any other notice of his works, in Sir John Harrington's 'Apology of Poetry,' printed in 1591, in which he takes occasion to speak of the theatre, and mentions some of the celebrated dramas of that time, is a proof that none of Shakspere's dramatic compositions had_then appeared. Does he mention Tamburlaine,' or Faustus,' or The Massacre of Paris,' or 'The Jew of Malta'? As he does not, it may be assumed with equal justice that none of Marlowe's compositions had appeared in 1591; and yet we know that he died in 1593. So of Lyly's Galathea," Alexander and Campaspe,' Endymion,' &c. So of Greene's Orlando Furioso,' Friar Bacon,' 'James IV.' So of the Spanish Tragedy' of Kyd. The truth is, that Harrington, in his notice of celebrated dramas, was even more antiquated than Puttenham; and his evidence therefore in this matter is utterly worthless. But Malone has given his crowning proof that Shakspere had not written before 1591, in the following words:"Sir Philip Sidney, in his 'Defence of Poesie,' speaks at some length of the low state of dramatic literature at the time he composed his treatise, but has not the slightest allusion to Shakspere, whose plays, had they then appeared, would doubtless have rescued the English stage from the contempt which is thrown upon it by the accomplished writer: and to which it was justly exposed by the wretched compositions of those who preceded

6

6

เ

6

our poet. The Defence of Poesie' was not published till 1595, but must have been written some years before." There is one slight objection to this argument: Sir Philip Sidney was killed at the battle of Zutphen, in the year 1586; and it would really have been somewhat surprising if the illustrious author of the 'Defence of Poesy' could have included Shakspere in his account "of the low state of dramatic literature at the time he composed this treatise."

If the instances of the mention of Shakspere by his contemporaries during his lifetime be not numerous, we are compensated by the fulness and explicitness of one notice that of Francis Meres, in 1598. Short as his notice is, it is by far the most valuable contribution which we possess towards the 'Life' of Shakspere. Meres was a master of arts of Cambridge, and subsequently entered the church. In 1558 he published a book called Palladis Tamia, Wit's Treasury.' It is a collection of moral sentences from ancient writers, and it is described by Anthony Wood as "a noted schoolbook." Prefixed to it is 'A Comparative Discourse of our English Poets.' Nothing can be more decisive than this Comparative Discourse' as to the rank which, in 1598, Shakspere had taken amongst the most eminent of his contemporaries.

"As the Greek tongue is made famous and eloquent by Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Eschylus, Sophocles, Pindarus, Phocylides, and Aristophanes; and the Latin tongue by Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Silius Italicus, Lucanus, Lucretius, Ausonius, and Claudianus; so the English tongue is mightily enriched, and gorgeously invested in rare ornaments and resplendent habiliments, by Sir Philip Sidney, Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, Warner, Shakspere, Marlow, and Chapman.

“As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the sweet witty soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakspere; witness his 'Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece,' his sugared sonnets among his private friends, &c.

"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for

comedy and tragedy among the Latins, so Shakspere, among the English, is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for comedy, witness his Gentlemen of Verona,' his Errors,' his Love Labours Lost,' his 'Love Labours Won,' his Midsummer Night's Dream,' and his 'Merchant of Venice;' for tragedy, his 'Richard II.,' 'Richard III.,'' Henry IV.,''King John,'' Titus Andronicus,' and his Romeo and Juliet.'

"As Epius Stolo said that the Muses would speak with Plautus's tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say that the Muses would speak_with_Shakspere's fine filed phrase if they would speak English."

6

96

6

The list of Shakspere's plays which Meres gives in 1598 can scarcely be supposed to be a complete one. Previous to 1598 there had been only printed the two Parts of the Contention' (now know as the 'Second and Third Parts of Henry VI.'), 'Richard III.,' Richard II.,' and Romeo and Juliet.' Of the six comedies mentioned by Meres, not one had been published; neither had Henry IV., King John,' nor Titus Andronicus ;' but in 1597 Love's Labour's Lost,' and the 'First Part of Henry IV.,' had been entered in Stationers' Hall. Without the list of Meres therefore we could not have absolutely shown that the Two Gentlemen of Verona,' the Comedy of Errors,' the 'All's Well that Ends Well' (which we have every reason to think was designated as Love Labours Won'), the Midsummer Night's Dream,' the Merchant of Venice,' the King John,' and the Titus Andronicus,' were written and produced before 1598. The list of Meres omits the original 'Hamlet,' and the Taming of the Shrew,' which we may believe were produced before 1598; but, looking at Meres' list alone, how gloriously had Shakspere earned that reputation which he had thus acquired in 1598! He was then thirty-four years of age, but he had produced all his great historical plays, with the exception of 'Henry V.' and' Henry VIII.' He had given us "Romeo and Juliet,' and had even "corrected and augmented" it; the stage was in possession, and the fame acknowledged, of six of his most delicious comedies. Before the close of

that century we have little doubt that he had also produced Henry V.,' the Merry Wives of Windsor,' and 'Much Ado about Nothing.'

Of the plays thus produced before the close of the sixteenth century, we would assign several (not fewer than nine, including the doubtful plays) to the period from Shakspere's early manhood to 1591. Some of those dramas may possibly then have been created in an imperfect state, very different from that in which we have received them. If the Titus Andronicus' and 'Pericles' are Shakspere's, they belong to his epoch in their first state, whatever it might have been. We have no doubt that the three plays, in their original form, which we now call the three Parts of 'Henry VI.,' were his; and they also belong to this epoch. That Hamlet' in a very imperfect state, probably more imperfect even than the sketch in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire, is the play alluded to by Nashe in 1589, we have little doubt. In the Duke of Devonshire's copy, dated 1602, there are passages, afterwards omitted, which decidedly refer to an early state of the stage. Amongst the comedies, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Love's Labour's Lost,' 'The Comedy of Errors,' and 'The Taming of the Shrew,' contain very strong external evidence, especially in the structure of their versification, that they belong to the poet's earliest period. When the time arrived that he had fully dedicated himself to the great work of his life, he had rarely ventured upon cultivating the offshoots of his early versification. The doggerel was entirely rejected—the alternate rhymes no longer tempted him by their music to introduce a measure which is scarcely akin with the dramatic spirit--the couplet was adopted more and more sparingly-and he finally adheres to the blank verse which he may almost be said to have created-in his hands certainly the grandest as well as the sweetest form in which the highest thoughts were ever unfolded to listening humanity. We have only one drama to add to this cycle, and that we believe, was 'Romeo and Juliet' in its original form.

The Midsummer Night's Dream' may be taken, we

VOL. V.

D

apprehend, as a connecting link between the dramas which belong to the first cycle and those which may be assigned to the remaining years of the sixteenth century.

We have little difficulty in determining the plays which belong to Shakspere's middle period. The list of Meres, and the dates of the original editions of those plays, are our best guides. The exact years in which they first appeared can only be determined in one or two cases; and it is of little consequence if they could be determined. The earliest of the historical plays of this cycle were those which completed the great story of the wars of the Roses. Richard III.' naturally terminated the eventful history of the House of York; Richard II.' commenced the more magnificent exhibition of the fortunes of the House of Lancaster. Both these plays were printed in 1597. The two great historical plays of Henry IV.' which succeeded them were, no doubt, produced before 1596. Henry V.' undoubtedly belongs to that year; and this great song of national triumph grew out of the earlier history of the "mad-cap Prince of Wales." The three latter histories are most remarkable for the exhibition of the greatest comic power that the world has ever seen. When the genius of Shakspere produced Falstaff, its most distinguishing characteristics, his wit and humour, had attained their extremest perfection. There is much of the same high comedy in King John.' This was the period which also produced those comic dramas which are most distinguished for their brilliancy of dialogue--the "fine filed phrase" which Meres describes The Merry Wives of Windsor, Much Ado about Nothing,' and 'Twelfth Night,' The Merchant of Venice,' and' All's Well that Ends Well,' belong to the more romantic class. The 'Twelfth Night' was originally thought to have been one of Shakspere's latest plays; but it is now proved beyond a doubt that it was acted in the Middle Temple Hall in the Christmas

of 1601.

The close of the sixteenth century brings us to Shakspere's thirty-fifth year. He had then been about fifteen years in London. We are not willing to believe that