the Sixth" is already fully and entirely Shakspeare, whereas it is impossible to attribute the "Arden of Feversham" to him, except in the immaturity of his genius.

I have less doubt with regard to "The Life and Death of Thomas Lord Cromwell," which Tieck has also translated in his "Vier Schauspielen Shakspeare's." It is entered at Stationers' Hall, 11th August, 1602, with the note, "as it was lately acted by the Lord Chamberlain his servants," i. e. by Shakspeare's company. It was printed the same year, with Shakspeare's initials on the title-page. That here again W. S. stands for Wentworth Smith, with whose name the English critics are always ready to stop the gap, is improbable, simply on this account, that Smith was at this time closely connected with Henslowe's company. At least, according to this person's diary, not less than fourteen plays were furnished by this writer to the Lord Admiral's company, between April, 1601, and March, 1603. In all of them, however, he had the co-operation of other writers. By himself, and unassisted, Wentworth Smith appears to have written little or nothing. It is therefore probable that Shakspeare was intended. However, this would be at best but a bookseller's authority, and which, as we have previously seen, is good for nothing. If, therefore, the internal structure is to decide the question, the first point will be, to determine the date of its original production. The note in the Registry at Stationers' Hall would speak for 1601 or 1602, if we had not seen, in the case of the "Pericles," that such notices are worth nothing. With far greater certainty does the great number of rhyming verses which occur in all parts of this drama allow us to infer that the representation of it in 1601 was only a revival. If, then, we may throw it back to the period before 1592, I can see no reason why it should not be regarded as a juvenile production of our poet. In such a case we can see a good reason for his unwillingness to publish it with his name in full. For he evidently must have allowed it to lie by him without altering or correcting it. The cause of this, again, may have been a conviction, that without entirely recasting it, it was impossible to reduce it to a more perfect shape. The form, i. e. the dramatic composition, is in the highest degree defective. Its narrative manner, which follows one by one the different stages of a man's life, and so divides the whole into a corresponding number

G G

of smaller pieces, may suit well enough the epical and fantastical subject-matter of the "Pericles," but not the historical materials of Cromwell. For the legend is essentially the past poetically projected into the present, or rather the present into the past; and consequently its form is the Epos-narration. History, however, is only history in so far as it is the imperishable present which lives unto all futurity; consequently, no poetical form is so suitable to it as the strictly dramatic-that intrinsie unity of space, time, and action, which pervades all the later dramas of Shakspeare. But in the present piece all three are alike violated. The first act has different fundamental relations, and a different significancy, from the second and the third, &c. The unity is confined to the unity of the person whose life and fortunes are depicted in the drama. And yet how admirably is the skill with which the poet has dexterously taken up again the many loosely connected threads, and collected together all the different personages whom he had brought before us at separate times and occasions, although he could not give a proper close to their dramatic existence. And yet I think I can discern in it Shakspeare's fine taste in giving roundness and totality to the most dissimilar materials; for the basis of the whole piece is a single view of life, even though it be but very general, and of an epical, rather than a dramatic, cast. And this is the fluctuation and uncertainty of life, now sinking to the lowest ebb of misfortune and poverty, and now swelling again to the full flood of glory and magnificence. And this view is not only illustrated by the fortunes of Cromwell, but also in the manifold alterations of good and ill luck which attend Bannister and his family, and also in the circumstances of Bagot, Bedford, Frescobald, and not excepting honest Hodge and Seely. The characterization follows the rules of epic composition: Cromwell is drawn invariably noble, amiable, talented, and lofty in his aims; his father (a poulterer) is kind-hearted; Gardiner, ambitious, envious, and intriguing; the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk are ordinary courtiers, delighted at the fall of a powerful rival, but without vigour or courage to lend a hand in accomplishing the object of their wishes; Bedford, on the other hand, a man in the dress of a courtier, grateful, full of sorrow for the ruin of his friend, but without talent or energy

to afford him any active assistance; Bannister, an unfortunate but innocent individual; Frescobald, a perfectly noble character; and Bagot, on the other hand, a wretch from head to foot; Hodge, a foolish, well-meaning simpleton, whose folly is his good fortune, &c. &c. All these figures are exhibited outwardly only, in slight but correct outline. The secret depths of their inmost feelings are closely sealed; and it is only so far as they actually take a share in the action, that they seem at all to stand out from the canvas. The comic characters, however the elder Cromwell, Hodge, Seely, and his wife-exhibit at times a touch of Shakspeare's wit. And yet the language, on the other hand, makes me hesitate again. It has, indeed, a general affinity with the straightforward calm epic flow, the graceful movement, and clear transparency and simplicity, of the diction of "Pericles." But the gems of Shakspeare's style-his figures and thoughts, which glitter in every part of "Pericles"-his peculiar brevity and rapid unexpected turns-the sudden alternation from the language of feeling to that of reflection, and that wonderful omnipresence of mind which instantaneously brings together the remotest ideasin short, all the tokens which, even in "Pericles," announce Shakspeare's future unlimited command of language, are here almost entirely wanting; a few occasional traces of them can alone be discovered. These circumstances constitute no slight objection to the genuineness of the piece, unless we could set it down as the very earliest of his pen, and written probably even prior to the "Pericles," or take it to be an unfinished sketch, which he had rapidly executed to meet some momentary demand. The latter hypothesis is supported by the structure of the first three acts especially, which are throughout devoid of adequate motives; the scenes are short and rapidly changed, while the representation is carried superficially over a variety of actions-a sure sign of hasty composition, which, though in a less degree, also marks the last two scenes. In all this we may perhaps discover a further reason for Shakspeare's unwillingness to allow his full name to be affixed to the publication. And thus neglected by the author himself, the piece appears to have been overlooked by his friends Heminge and Condell; at least, with this hypothesis, it would cease to be sur

prising that it had no place in the folio of 1623. All this, like most other matters in this field of inquiry, is in truth but mere conjecture, and so, in my judgment, the genuineness of the piece must be conjectural, though certainly not improbable. In the great number of poets, whose merits were far from ordinary, who belonged to the school of Shakspeare, but who are almost wholly unknown to us, (for how poor is Dodsley's Collection compared with the profusion of plays mentioned in Henslowe's Diary alone,) I at least have not sufficient confidence in my own judgment to give an unhesitating verdict; indeed, if I were not supported by the authority of Tieck, I could never have ventured to advance a conjectural affirmative against the almost unanimous negative of English critics.

In my opinion, the historical tragedy of "Edward the Third, and the Black Prince," evinces more of the mind and style of Shakspeare than any of the pieces hitherto considered; and yet the ascription of it to that author rests on no authority but that of old Catalogues, and is consequently almost entirely unsupported by external evidence. It is entered not less than four times at Stationers' Hall; the first entry being under the 1st of Dec., 1595, and the last on the 23rd of February, 1625. It was first printed in 1596, and again in 1599, both times without the author's name. I have no knowledge of any later editions. The mere fact that these two editions are anonymous, proves nothing, however, since the same is the case with the oldest edition of "Richard the Second," (1597), of "Henry the Fourth," first part (1598), "Henry the Fifth," (1600), "Richard the Third," (1597), and "Romeo and Juliet ;" and since this circumstance admits of a ready explanation in the relative position which at this period the drama held in English literature, and partly also in the infancy of Shakspeare's fame. And even if the later editions, which, according to the Stationers' Registry, appeared somewhere about the years 1609, 1617, and 1625, were also without any author's name, still this no doubt startling circumstance might be satisfactorily explained by the nature of the piece itself. The last two acts, for instance, are full of bitter and rancorous invectives against the Scotch, which, as the lan

guage of English patriotism, might have been very acceptable to Elizabeth, (who, it is well known, loved her successor as little as his mother, and was never at ease when Scotland was named,) but would have been highly offensive to the ears of James. To this monarch, Shakspeare, as we formerly saw, was indebted for many marks of favour, and he has consequently praised and extolled him in many of his pieces. In order, therefore, not to violate the obligations of ingratitude, he perhaps expressly disavowed the paternity of " Edward the Third," or at least took no notice of it, and left to its fate a piece with which he had probably other reasons also to feel dissatisfied. Hence, then, it admits of explanation, how a poem which bears so decidedly the stamp of Shakspeare's genius, was omitted, or perhaps intentionally excluded, from the folio edition of his works, which his friends Heminge and Condell collected. It belonged in all probability to Shakspeare's earliest labours, and was written two years before the earliest impression. This early date seems to follow from the language and versification, which contains many rhyming passages, and especially from the composition, which, when we consider the piece as a whole, we cannot but pronounce to be defective. The first two acts stand independently by themselves, and possess in some measure an intrinsic, but nothing of an external, connexion with the next three. The former are taken up almost exclusively with the king's passion for the beautiful Countess of Salisbury, whom he had rescued from the Scottish host. In the following scenes this intrigue is never again alluded to; it is, in fact, entirely at an end at the close of the second act, where Edward, conquered by the virtuous resistance of the noble Countess, renounces his guilty passion, and resumes his moral strength and mastery over himself. The Countess accordingly retires altogether from the scene, which is now transferred to the victorious campaign of Edward, and his heroic son in France. Thus the piece appears to fall apart into two distinct and unconnected halves. We may, however, get rid of this objection, by supposing these halves to separate portions of a greater whole; corresponding, for instance, to the two parts of "Henry the Fourth." On this supposition the piece rounds itself off into a perfect and beautiful history, worthy in every respect of the great poet. Then