are filled up by mere names, while the spirit which he has breathed into the borrowed matter is manifestly his own.

In still greater energy does Shakspeare's life-giving and animating power reveal itself in "Hamlet." For this play, the Legend of Amleth-whose oldest discovered source is the Danish "Histories of Saxo Gramaticus"-furnishes scarcely a meagre skeleton, which, however, in "Belleforest's Tragic Tales," and its English version, (the old novel of "The History of Hamblett,") appears with something more of flesh and muscle, but in comparison with the "Hamlet" of Shakspeare is still a colourless and lifeless body. Whether Shakspeare drew from this novel, or from the older tragedy of the same title current before 1589 (which, according to Nash, in "Green's Arcadia," 1589, was interlarded with sentences from Seneca, and therefore is unlikely to have been Shakspeare's first sketch of the piece), cannot be determined; as the old piece is lost. It is only probable, however, that the latter was the immediate source of our "Hamlet." On this, the most profound of his tragedies, the poet was employed, with some intermission no doubt, not less than ten years. In the "Stationers' Register" it is, it is true, first entered in 1602. The oldest, only recently discovered, impression bears date 1603. In the second 4to. edition of the same year, which had previously been looked upon as the oldest, but which evidently gives the piece in a later shape than the former, (see above, p. 85, note), it is, as the title itself announces, enlarged by more than one-half, and this was perhaps its last revision; at least it is evidently taken for the basis of the folio edition of 1623, from which it differs by some occasional omissions, made, no doubt, from a regard to the time of representation. Now, in " Henslowe's Diary," we find a "Hamlet" entered as early as 1593, unfortunately without any further designation--whether this was Shakspeare's first sketch can neither be affirmed nor denied; it is more likely, however, it was the older piece already spoken of. It is probable, on the other hand, that Lodge is alluding to Shakspeare's play, when, in a work of his which appeared in 1596, he says of Thomas Nash,— "He looks as pale as the Ghost, crying on the stage as pitiably as an oyster-wife, Hamlet, revenge!" For Lodge, the admirer of Robert Greene, was undoubtedly no friend of Shakspeare. But

at all events, it is a well established fact, that "Hamlet" existed as early as 1598, since it is honourably mentioned in a note, written in Speght's edition of Chaucer, in the hand of Gabriel Harvey, bearing this date, in which Shakspeare's name is expressly mentioned. (Drake, ii., 29, 391.) All, therefore, that can be said is, that the first appearance of the piece falls somewhere between 1593 and 1598, but that in its present form it belongs to the year 1602. The fact that it is not mentioned by Meres in his "Palladis Tamia," affords at most but a slight presumption in favour of its origin in 1598. For it was evidently the purpose of Meres to mention only such of Shakspeare's works as were perfect in his judgment, and excellent compositions.

Of "King Lear," likewise, besides the folio edition, an older 4to. of 1608 is extant. In the "Register" at Stationers' Hall, however, there is an entry as early as Nov. 26, 1607, to the effect that it was acted before the King at Whitehall, at the previous Christmas festival. It was therefore in existence in 1606. That it was first composed after the death of Elizabeth, and perhaps after the proclamation of James, Oct. 1, 1604, (announcing his accession to the English crown), is rendered probable by an allusion to the union of Scotland and England contained in the name Britain, (Chalmers' Supp. Apol., p. 47). On the other hand, the older piece, "King Leyr," is entered the 8th of May, 1605, with the remark, "as it was lately acted;" its publication and revival being occasioned probably by the appearance of Shakspeare's "Lear." Now, since this external testimony is supported by all internal evidences, whether drawn from the characterization, composition, versification, or language, it becomes extremely likely that the piece was finished either by the end of 1604 or the beginning of 1605. The legend of "King Leyr," who, in the year of the world 3105, reigned in England, is to be found in Holinshed, and his forerunner Geoffrey of Monmouth. The earlier piece follows the legend pretty closely, while our present tragedy deviates from it so considerably, that, as in "Hamlet," the story assumes quite a different character from the original. Besides, it is enlarged by more than a half by the story of Gloster and his sons, which is entirely wanting both in the older piece and in the legend, and of which Shakspeare borrowed the principal

features, though indeed in the rudest outline, from an episode in Sidney's "Arcadia." What Shakspeare has here elaborated, out of such barren materials, is really wonderful, and absolutely holds the place of a new creation; and not less wonderful is the art with which he has so dexterously interwoven the two stories, and breathed into the old legend, as well as into the modern tale, the same profound historical spirit. Moreover, the characters of Kent and the Fool, as indeed the personages generally of all his dramas, are entirely his own.

In " Macbeth," on the other hand, the legend which possessed a surer historical footing had taken a more perfect shape before Shakspeare adopted it. The story of Macbeth, which belongs to the middle of the eleventh century, as related in the Chronicles of Holinshed, already contains all the tragic motives which Shakspeare develops in his tragedy. Even in the march of events he has made but slight alteration, having done little more than compressed what in the narrative is most undramatically spun out; all the characters too, in outline at least, are given in the Chronicle-even the witches and their predictions are not wanting. And yet it is necessary closely to compare the drama with the legend, in order to perceive what power of genius was requisite to produce such a poem out of the given materials. That the piece was first written in the reign of James is at once proved by the apparition of the line of Kings from Banquo. Furthermore, in making Banquo both innocent and ignorant of Duncan's murder, Shakspeare deviated from the Chronicle beyond all question from a regard to his royal patron. The descent of James from Banquo had been proved in the Appendix to Warner's "Albion's England," which was first printed in 1606, and could not easily have been generally known before that date. Accordingly, Malone (Chronological Order, &c., in "Reed's Shakspeare," 11, 33,) with the concurrence of Tieck, Chalmers, Drake, and all the best English critics, have placed this drama somewhere about 1606. That it could not have been written earlier follows from the language, versification, and the characters, but especially from the deep and forcible seriousness of the tragic view it contains. For my part I should be disposed to place its appearance some years later; and this view is supported by a note

in a manuscript of Dr. Forman, lately discovered by Collier, according to which it was first produced at the Globe, on the 20th of April, 1610, ("Collier's New Particulars," p. 22). This was probably the opening of the summer season, on which occasion a new piece would in all likelihood be selected.

TITUS ANDRONICUS-TIMON OF ATHENS.

For several reasons I shall take these two tragedies together, but chiefly because of a certain intrinsic affinity between them, and because, as far as time is concerned, they form the opening and close of Shakspeare's tragic career. The two compared together throw a peculiar light on the character of his dramatic art generally, as well as on the several tragedies which were written in the interval between them.

Titus Andronicus was a favourite piece with the multitude: according to Ben Jonson, in his "Bartholomew Fair" (1614), it had then been from twenty-five to thirty years on the stage, and must therefore have been written between 1587 and 1588. It is one of the twelve pieces of our author, which, in 1598, Meres, a friend of Shakspeare, in his work which we have so often quoted, mentions with approbation. Moreover, it is also contained in the first folio edition published by Heminge and Condell, friends likewise of Shakspeare, and joint shareholders with him in the Globe. Against such a weight of historical testimony no merely critical arguments can avail anything, except, perhaps, with the irreflective and petty criticism of the English, who doubt the genuineness of the piece merely because it is in their judgment unworthy of Shakspeare. Its authenticity is denied, because many passages (twenty, according to Malone) contain allusions to ancient mythology and history, and even Latin verses; because no humourous scene occurs in it; because the verses are without dissyllabic terminations, after Shakspeare's usual manner, and are unvaried and monotonous; and lastly, because the piece is entered without the author's name at Stationers' Hall, on the 6th of February, 1593, and was printed, likewise anonymously, in two editions (1594-1611) during the life-time of Shakspeare. ("Reed's Shak

speare, xxi. 138, 140, &c.) The last argument which, for a work of the present day, would be almost convincing, is for those days one of the very weakest; for when the piece was first produced on the stage, both custom, and the estimation in which such productions were held, forbade the promulgation of the author's name, and it might therefore have been unknown even in 1593-4 to the bookseller who published it, certainly without the author's knowledge or consent, or else the addition of it might have appeared superfluous, since the piece had long had its admirers, and the authority of a name was not wanted to recommend it. As to the edition of 1611, it is probably nothing more than a reprint of the older one of 1594, now lost. As to the peculiarities of the language and versification, which it is pretended could not possibly be Shakspeare's, they become not only easy to be accounted for, but what we should naturally look for, when we consider that the young Shakspeare, like the young Raphael, must unquestionably have directed his first essays by the models of older and more famous masters; in the present case, those of Marlowe, in whom all these peculiarities are found in abundance. On the contrary, it would have been as singular if he had not done. so, as it would be wonderful if his first essays had been at once complete masterpieces. Such the "Titus Andronicus" is not by any means: on the contrary, its great defects are obvious. The incidents and revolutions of fortune are horrible in the highest degree, and in this respect it as much surpasses Marlowe's wellknown pieces of violence and rage as it is superior to them in tragic energy and moral earnestness. The most fearful crimes are rapidly accumulated with steadily advancing enormity. When we think we have reached the summit of these most unnatural cruelties and vice, the next scene suddenly opens to our view a still higher ascent. The characters are sketches done with the coarsest touches and darkest colouring; one personage, Aaron the Moor, is, perhaps, (I fear, however, only perhaps), perfectly untrue to nature; he appears to be a very devil, and no man. It is, alas! too true, that the nature of human wickedness is most difficult to understand, and but too easy to depict. Again, the action is hurried on certainly with precipitate haste, and without adequate motives, if not absolutety without consideration.