conspires against his life, with the low object of a guilty passion, which is laid before us fully grown and mature, without its growth, being explained or explicable by her own character and circumstances. The piece is without an idea or a view of life universally true. All that is set forth before us is the commission of a single crime by certain parties, while on the other hand the representation is loaded with a ballast of wholly unimportant and secondary characters-such as Lord Cheyney, the Host, the Goldsmith, the Sailor, the Ferryman, who have scarcely an external reference to the action. The occasion, too, which the poet takes of appending a comic scene or two, (e. g. Act IV. Sc. 2, 3,) do not in the least bespeak Shakspeare's great talents for comedy, which, however, shew themselves so distinctly in "Pericles" and "Locrine." The subject is drawn from the "Chronicles," which narrate at length the story which really happened in 1550, and excited a great sensation at the time. The invention is so far Shakpearean, as the poet, with a few trifling exceptions, has adhered closely to his sources. Of the other merits of the piece, the reader can easily judge for himself. In such cases as the present criticism ultimately resolves itself into feeling. Mine is decidedly against the authenticity. If, notwithstanding, it really be from the pen of Shakspeare, it must at all events be one of the very earliest of his youthful productions, and even have preceded the "Pericles," and the revision of the "Locrine," and composed in that case about 1585-6, after the model of Greene and Peele. And yet the piece cannot well have been of so early a date. For, as we have already seen, it was not until 1586 that Marlowe introduced blank verse on a public stage, and it naturally took some time before it was established in the public favour. In all of Shakspeare's older dramas we meet with a greater or less number of rhyming passages. In the work before us, on the contrary, there is not one; nay more, even the rhyming couplet with which in all his plays Shakspeare frequently closes a long speech or scene, occurs only four times in "Arden of Feversham." It can, therefore, have hardly been written more than two years previous to the date of the earliest impression. In this case it would fall to the same time as the "Henry the Sixth," and the earlier comedies. I take it, therefore, to be most improbable that it is a work of Shakspeare's. The poet of “ Henry

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 intrinsic 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 ideas— in 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