practised writer, for it is extremely easy and natural. But it is impossible to look upon it one moment as a work of Shakspeare's practised pen, for its poetical merits are far below those of the "Pericles" or "Titus Andronicus." On the whole, it is not much better than the "Sir John Oldcastle," with which, however, it possesses so great a resemblance, both externally and internally, that it comes perhaps from the hand of one of the three poets to whom that work is ascribed; at all events it belongs to the eminently popular school of which we may name Heywood, Dekker, Drayton, and Ford, as the heads. In the very spirit of this school, which certainly moulded its labours by the model of Shakspeare, we here meet with a correctly drawn and vivid, but slight and superficial characterization. There is an easy flow in the language and versification, but they are without vigour or beauty, poor in thought, and meagre in the expression of passion and feeling. The scenes too succeed each other with a measured graceful movement; but the action is led by the thread of an external history, and does not flow naturally out of the inmost depths of the mind. All the characters act more from external influences than internal motives. Lucy, for instance, sacrifices herself merely because she is, though by a forced marriage, the wife of her wedded husband, and the latter (the Prodigal) reforms himself because of the self-devotion of his wife. The comic, too, is quite external, and consists merely in the patois of the Devonshire clothier, the abuse of some servants, and, as some perhaps may think, in the naïve simplicity of Bisam and his bride. Of that intrinsic dialectic of irony which lies at the bottom of all Shakspeare's comedy the writer has no conception. But the composition especially is altogether un-Shakspearean. I have been at so much pains to elucidate the distinctive peculiarities of our bard in this particular, that I think I have earned for myself the right to lay greater stress upon this point in a critical estimate of a disputed work, than upon those other characteristics which any writer possessed of ordinary talent might successfully imitate. A poet's composition, however, rests pre-eminently on his poetic view of the system of things, and this no one can appropriate by imitation. Now in the present piece, as well as in "Sir John Oldcastle," we discover, no doubt, Shakspeare's manner of allowing several actions and several groups of charac

ters to advance collaterally and in common. But these several circles are neither ideally nor organically combined; they have scarcely a mechanical connection. The story of the Prodigal possesses not the most remote communion intrinsically with the love adventures of Bisam, Oliver, and Sir Arthur; these characters, as well as Mr. Weathercock, Delia, &c. are mere supernumeraries, without poetical bearing on the main fable. The poem divides into a proper dramatic action, and a number of subordinate unimportant incidents into truly dramatic personages, and mere supernumeraries and officials; and consequently hangs but loosely together. Every where there is that redundance of materials which is so common to popular writers, as aiming almost exclusively at momentary effect. I am therefore curious to know the reasons which induced Tieck to admit the "London Prodigal" in his lately published work, "Vier Schauspielen Shakespeare's."

In the case of the "Puritan Widow"-"The Widow of Watling-Streete," which is entered at Stationers' Hall, and printed the same year, with the initials W. S. (meaning probably Wentworth Smith), and of the history of "King Stephen," which does not possess even the authority of initials, I may dispense with the trouble of proving their spuriousness, since no one as yet but booksellers and catalogue-writers have ascribed them to Shakspeare. The "Duke Humphrey," which even Drake mentions among the pseudo-Shakspeare's works, is most probably the second part of "Henry the Sixth.

Of the really doubtful pieces, Locrine is, perhaps, the oldest. In the books of the Stationers' Company, the first entry of "The Lamentable Tragedie of Locrine, the eldest sonne of King Brutus," is, it is true, the 20th of July, 1594, and it was printed the next year by Th. Creede. But the very addition on the title-page, "as newly set forth, overseen, and corrected by W.S." from which Shakspeare's authorship has been inferred, proves that it was an older piece then revived. The same conclusion follows from many passages written throughout in rhyme; and also from the strong glow of partriotism which pervades the whole piece, and the evident allusions to the years of 1586-8, when the English were alarmed by the intrigues of Mary Queen of Scots, and the threatened invasion by Spain.

In all probability it was in these years that the piece first appeared. Tieck has translated it in his "Alt Englische Theater," and pronounced it to be a production of Shakspeare's youthful muse. He thinks that it contains in embryo most of his later excellencies, and that a searching eye will recognise his genius in every part, and that it bespeaks so loudly his predilection for the fantastic and gigantesque, that most of the speeches do but re-echo the tones of the rough Pyrrhus in "Hamlet" (a tirade which is unquestionably taken from some earlier piece of our poet's). He also supposes that Shakspeare reprinted and published it, with additions and corrections, in 1595, when there was an apprehension of a second Armada. I am far from disputing the weight of these considerations; only they appear to me insufficient to refute the statement of the title-page, that the piece was but revised, overseen, and corrected by W. S. It possesses, no doubt, some of the leading springs of action which Shakspeare has employed in other works— as, for instance, the division of the kingdom by a dying father— the appearance of ghosts-family dissensions, &c.; and some of the characters-Humbler, for example, Albanacht, and Estrild, remind us of the "Titus Andronicus." But such general motives are found commonly in all the dramatic writers of the day, and any resemblance in the external drawing of the characters may easily be accounted for by the supposed touch of revision. To recognise Shakspeare's mind and tone in "Locrine," can only mean to perceive that the general spirit and sentiments of the drama agree well with Shakspeare's character. As to the moral earnestness and spirited patriotism of the piece, every high-minded Englishman would doubtless at this time have been in unison with Shakspeare on this point. One sentiment pervaded the breasts of the whole people. Lastly, the similarity between it and the rude language of Pyrrhus would seem to make more against, than for, the opinion of Tieck. For the modesty of Shakspeare no where, not even in prologues or epilogues, allowed of the slightest self-praise, and on this ground alone we think the lines in "Hamlet" can hardly belong any work of his own. But, this hypothesis failing, the diction likewise of "Locrine" is anything but Shakspearean; it is, in the

to

first place, much heavier, more diffuse and tedious, than in "Titus Andronicus" and "Henry the Sixth," and has not the grace and tenderness of the "Pericles" to compensate for these faults. Although it exhibits some affinity with "Titus Andronicus," yet the expression of passion is more measured, less vigorous, and more transparent. It wants the stormy exaggerated elevation which we should have been prepared to look for from the youthful Shakspeare, when treating such a subject; the language is evidently choice, artificial, and adorned with pompous epithets and figures-indeed, the reflections which so constantly occur, not only in the dialogue, but also in the prologues to the several acts, alone bespeak an older artist, and one more completely master of his subject, and form a perfect contrast to the youthful colouring of "Titus Andronicus." This circumstance is of great importance, since these two dramas must have appeared nearly about the same time-" Locrine," perhaps, being the older and revised shortly after the defeat of the Armada (1588). Lastly, I cannot discover in "Locrine" any trace of Shakspeare's fine sense for the beauty of dramatic form. The story is by no means of an epical caste; and this defect, therefore, can in nowise be palliated on this plea, as in the case of the "Pericles.” On the contrary, it admitted, as much as the "Titus Andronicus," of an organic, ideal roundness of form, and which, in the latter piece, Shakspeare has at least attempted. But the author of "Locrine" evidently possessed not the least conception of the peculiarly Shakspearean principle of composition, in which all centred in and issued from a particular view of life (Idea). The long scene of Brutus' death-indeed, the whole first act-is merely a prologue: it belongs to the past, and is consequently entirely unconnected with the proper dramatic and existing action. The latter does not commence until the second act, where it immediately diverges into two branches: on one side, the story of Humber, Hubba, and Estrild; on the other, Locrine and his wife, with his mother and uncle. The two groups are brought into outward contact, indeed, by means of purely factitious incidents; they do not revolve concentrically around a common ground-idea. Humber's story conveys a very different lesson from that set forth by the deeds and sufferings

of Locrine. Hubba and Albanacht are mere subordinate characters, who enter and again take leave of the action from purely external motives. We miss throughout that living ideal relation of the incidents and characters to each other, and that organic contrariety, which mark the composition of Shakspeare even in his earliest works-the "Titus" and the " Pericles." The comic parts alone constitute an exception. The history of Strumbo and his two wives, forms, something in Shakspeare's manner, a comic counterpart to "Locrine." But it is even in these that I am inclined to see Shakspeare's correcting and improving hand. Both in spirit and shape they are marked with the stamp of Shakspeare, and possess a decided affinity to the comic scenes in "Pericles," "Henry the Sixth," "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," &c. They may, therefore, have been added by Shakspeare wholly, or at least mostly, from his own resources, whereas he merely corrected and altered the other parts, and occasionally introduced a verse or two of his own. Whether, however, this is one of the pieces on account of which Greene reproached the youthful Shakspeare with adorning himself in the feathers of others, and whether, in such a case, it was originally a work of Peele's, as the choice and elaborate language might lead us to conclude, I do not venture to decide. On this point Tieck perhaps will furnish better information. At all events, by the initials W. S. on the title-page of the old edition, no Wentworth Smith (as Malone believes), nor any one else, is meant, but Shakspeare, for of this initial-fellow of Shakspeare we know that his poetical career did not commence until ten years after the appearance of "Locrine." In Henslowe's diary he is first mentioned, in 1599, as the author of the "Italian Tragedy " (Collier, iii. 98).

To the "Locrine" the older " King John" immediately attaches itself. First of all, it must have appeared nearly at the same time with it. For the "Troublesome Reign of John King of England," two parts, was printed as early as 1591 without the author's name, for the bookseller Sampson Clarke, and seems to have been written about the time of the Spanish Invasion, or at least soon after the defeat of the Armada (1588). This is evident both from the fanatical zeal against the Papists, as well as from the ardent pa