four companies, whose members were by no means regarded as state servants, appointed and pensioned for life, but as hirelings, liable to dismissal, whose good or bad fortune consequently depended on the favour of their patrons, and their acceptance with the public, must have stimulated them to the greatest exertion-such as could not fail of being in the highest degree beneficial to their profession. The universal fondness of the people for theatrical exhibitions was no less calculated to advance it. This, and the estimation in which the best actors were heldas the instances of Shakspeare, Burbage, Heywood, and others, prove-must have tended to draw forth and encourage youthful talents. It is, therefore, nothing surprising that the improvement of histrionic art should have kept pace with the advance of dramatic poetry, even though the latter made gigantic steps in the twenty years between 1580 and 1600. At the date of Shakspeare's first appearance, the players must already have arrived at a high degree of excellence, or they could not have done justice to the earliest works of the great poet, nor even to those also of his older contemporaries. The part of " Barabas," for instance, in Marlowe's "Jew of Malta," is so difficult, that the piece has been reproduced within these ten years on the London stage, in order to exhibit the powers of a famous actor. Equally difficult is the part of Tamburlane, in the play of that name, which Marlowe produced, as is well established, about 1586. Shakspeare's "Titus Andronicus," and still more his "Henry the Sixth," required a number of practised and skilful actors; and it may safely be assumed, that poets who were also actors would not have carried their requisitions beyond the powers of their colleagues, since, by so doing, they must inevitably have prejudiced the success of their own poetic creations. No doubt, that extravagant, overwrought acting in the expression of the passions and affections-the violent gesticulation and grimacing, which Hamlet ridicules-were still to be met with even at this time, since it fully agrees with the character of most of the pieces of the day, and with the general taste of the public. But that a consciousness of its absurdity was, nevertheless, soon arrived at, and this false manner quickly abandoned, is proved by the few simple rules which Hamlet delivers to the players. The parts in Shakspeare's later pieces, almost without exception,

D

require such fine and well-weighed acting; his nervous and pregnant, frequently high-soaring, passionate, and figurative language, demand an enunciation so perfect, and frequently suppose so expressive a play of countenance,-as a dumb accompaniment of the action, and oftentimes (as in Macbeth, Lear, Hamlet, &c.) the principal effect of the poetry depends so closely and entirely on the actor's representative skill,—that we are forced to place the powers and capacities of the latter on a par with the grandeur and beauty of the poetry. In fact, the fame of a Burbage, an Alleyn, a most eminent tragedian, and of a Wilson and a Tarleton, most rare comedians, of a Nathanael Field and John Underwood-the latter celebrated even a sa boy-was so great, that names are quoted even in the present day, and, supported by the deathless genius of Shakspeare, will probably survive to all time.

Such was the general condition of the English stage, and of dramatic art, when Shakspeare began his poetic career. In order, however, to enable us to form a correcter judgment how much this great poet owed to the history of his art-to the past on which he stood, and to the present upon which he entered—we must, in conclusion, draw a brief but characteristic sketch of the most eminent poets of the stage who may be regarded as his immediate predecessors or older contemporaries. Here, however, it is necessary to premise, that from personal examination of their works, we know very little, comparatively, of the older English dramatists. Even in England but a small number of them is commonly known, many of them exist only in MS., and still more, without doubt, are irretrievably lost. The cause of this lies partly in the want of a taste among Englishmen for art and its history, but still more in the fact, that at this time a piece did not appear in print immediately upon its representation, but, on the contrary, the publication was in many cases purposely hindered and delayed. In consequence of the great competition, each company sought to form a stock of its own pieces, and naturally prized most highly those which met with the most extensive reception. Such pieces were, therefore, preserved in MS., and often existed merely in the parts which were separately copied out for the several actors, and it was only after they had had their run-probably many years afterwards-that they first appeared in print. Of the

dramas, consequently, which have been rescued from oblivion, it is generally impossible to determine precisely the date of their composition; and this circumstance occasions great perplexity in the critical estimation of Shakspeare's dramas. Collier, indeed, in his elaborate History of the English Drama, has done good service to the cause, but even he, with all the means at his command, and with all his diligence, has not always been able to arrive at a precise and well authenticated conclusion.

The first to be mentioned here is Thomas Kyd, apparently a contemporary of John Lyly. To this writer English critics unanimously ascribe, and with good reason, indeed, the above mentioned "Jeronimo," and the "Spanish Tragedy," a favourite and popular piece, which, having first appeared probably in 1588, was again successfully introduced in 1602, with many additions from the pen of Ben Jonson. Besides this production, all that we know of him with certainty is, that he translated "Cornelia" from the French of Garnier. The further ascription to him of the "Soliman and Perseda," the old "Taming of a Shrew," and the old "Hamlet," rests either on mere presumption or false criticism. He died in poverty and wretchedness, in 1595.

Of greater importance was John Lyly (born in Kent, 1551, proceeded to the degree of B.A. in 1573, to that of M.A. 1576, and died about 1598), whose "Euphues, the Anatomie of Wit," appeared, according to Collier, 1579, and on account of its polished, often artificial, playful, but tasteless language, the fineness and ornateness of the thought, and of a reasoning by no means profound, yet for the most part highly plausible, decked out with far-fetched similes and allusions, quickly gained a wide and favourable reception, especially at court (Drake, i. 441). The same qualities served also to recommend his dramatic compositions, of which it is certain six appeared prior to 1589. Of these the greater number were in prose; one piece only, "The Maid's Metamorphosis," being in rhyme, and another, "The Woman in the Moon," in blank verse. His nine comedies (of which six were printed) were all written for court entertainments, as the composition abundantly proves, being full of recondite allusions to the Queen and her suite, to the petty incidents and secret anecdotes of the court, and display a certain cleverness and wit, but have no pretence to

poetical merit. Their claim to rank as comedies is drawn exclusively from certain ludicrous details, which are not unfrequently the merest absurdities and platitudes, and does not rest on that true comic view of things in general, from which alone comedy derives her poetic dignity and profound significance. This at once explains how it happened that Lyly, in spite of the great simplicity of his plots generally, has nevertheless so gravely offended against the laws of dramatic composition, that in several of his plays the comic parts have not the slightest connection with the proper action and the rest of the fable. Seven of his pieces are on mythological subjects, or at least may be justly styled ideal pastorals, since in them, heathen deities, nymphs, &c. take a prominent share in the action. This fact would alone dispose us to feel surprise at Malone's assertion, that Lyly comes nearer than any other dramatist before Shakspeare to a truthful delineation of character and life. In fact, in such mythological pieces there could be no place for the depicting of character, strictly speaking; and although his best, and probably oldest, piece, "Alexander and Campaspe," contains some well-conceived and well-executed characters (particularly "Diogenes and Alexander"); yet even with respect to these, the praise seems extravagant, when we think of Greene, Marlowe, and many others. More deserving of approbation is his invention, which in some pieces is both ingenious and graceful. On the whole, Lyly was a learned, elegant, and witty writer, a bel esprit in the manner of the sixteenth century, but no poct. Accordingly, his pieces can by no means be called popular. Nevertheless, his style of writing exercised so great an influence on the language of the age, that whatever in Shakspeare's diction appears far-fetched and affected, his sharp-shooting, for instance, with antithesis and sententious pomp of phrase, his play of words, and occasionally artificial wit,—are to be laid to Lyly's account, and to be regarded as the echo of the prevailing tone of his day. That Shakspeare studied Lyly's pieces is clear, both from certain maxims and witticisms, which he must have borrowed from him, and from certain passages in which he has closely imitated him. Such passages, however, are only occasional, and therefore while Tieck is right in maintaining that the commentators of Shakspeare have much to learn from Lyly, the assertion of Schlegel is equally

true, that Shakspeare himself can have learned little if any thing

from him.

George Peele, whose principal work, "David and Bathseba," appeared in 1590, but who, as early as 1585, was the city poet of London, and died 1598, and his contemporary, Thomas Lodge (born about 1556, died after 1616), composed for the most part in the same style and character with Marlowe and Greene, whose friendship they enjoyed. The one, however, was not so harmless and graceful in his raillery as Greene, nor the other so bold, vigorous, and affecting as Marlowe. Peele having just left Oxford, first appeared as a writer in 1584, with his "Arraignment of Paris," the mythological piece already mentioned, which was composed for the amusement of the court, and in celebration of Elizabeth's beauty. Written in Lyly's manner, it is, nevertheless, far superior to the best pieces of that author: for Peele possessed all the excellencies of Lyly, in an equal, if not a higher degree, without his faults. Thomas Nash, who flourished about 1588, calls him, with good reason, "primus verborum artifex." An elegant diction, graceful expression, and an harmonious and flowing versification, are, in fact, his principal merits. On the other hand, in force and depth of thought, in vigour of language and finish of composition, he did not come up to his model, the famous Marlowe; on the plan of whose Tamburlane he wrote (about 1587-8) his Battle of Alcazar, a piece which, as A. Dyce (G. Peele's Works, 2d edit. 1829 vol. i. p. xxvii.) tells us, was erroneously ascribed to Marlowe himself, and whose Edward II. he attempted to rival in his own Edward I.

Not more successful was Lodge with his "Wounds of the Civil War," a tragedy, which appeared shortly after 1586, and likewise owed its origin to Marlowe's "Tamburlane." It was his best piece; and however successful it may be in several of its characters, is still in every other point greatly inferior to Marlowe's best dramas. It was, however, his other friend, Greene, who, besides many excellent pieces, left behind him a still greater number, negligently and hastily written, that Lodge chiefly took for his model, and him he surpassed in many respects. Lodge, for instance, exhibits a profounder, more vigorous, and better sustained characterisation, and a more innate sense of nature and propriety, against both of