duced in the period betwixt Titus Andronicus, and the earliest of the acknowledged pieces.

At last, Steevens published seven pieces ascribed to Shakspeare in two supplementary volumes. It is to be remarked, that they all appeared in print in Shakspeare's life-time, with his name prefixed at full length. They are the following:

1. Locrine. The proofs of the genuineness of this piece are not altogether unambiguous; the grounds for doubt, on the other hand, are entitled to attention. However, this question is immediately connected with that respecting Titus Andronicus, and must be at the same time resolved in the affirmative or negative.

2. Pericles, Prince of Tyre. This piece was acknowledged by Dryden, but as a youthful work of Shakspeare. It is most undoubtedly his, and it has been admitted into several of the late editions. The supposed imperfections originate in the circumstance, that Shakspeare here handled a childish and extravagant romance of the old poet Gower, and was unwilling to drag the subject out of its proper sphere. Hence he even introduces Gower himself, and makes him deliver a prologue entirely in his antiquated language and versification. This power of assuming so foreign a manner is at least no proof of helplessness.

3. The London Prodigal. If we are not mistaken, Lessing pronounced this piece to be Shakspeare's, and wished to bring it on the German stage.

4. The Puritan, or the Widow of Watling-street.

One of my literary friends, intimately acquainted with Shakspeare, was of opinion that the poet must have wished to write a play for once in the style of Ben Jonson, and that in this way we must account for the difference between the present piece and his usual manner. To follow out this idea however would lead to a very nice critical investigation.

5. Thomas Lord Cromwell.

6. Sir John Oldcastle-First Part.

7. A Yorkshire Tragedy.

The three last pieces are not only unquestionably Shakspeare's, but in my opinion they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works. Steevens admits at last, in some degree, that they are Shakspeare's as well as the others, excepting Locrine, but he speaks of all of them with great contempt, as quite worthless productions. His condemnatory sentence is not however in the slightest degree convincing, nor is it supported by critical acumen. I should like to see how such a critic would, of his own natural suggestion, have decided on Shakspeare's acknowledged masterpieces, and what he would have thought of praising in them, had the public opinion not imposed on him the duty of admiration. Thomas Lord Cromwell and Sir John Oldcastle are biographical dramas and models in this species; the first is linked, from its subject, to Henry the Eighth, and the second to Henry the Fifth. The second part of Oldcastle is wanting; I know not whether a copy of the old edition has been discovered

in England, or whether it is lost. The Yorkshire Tragedy is a tragedy in one act, a dramatised tale of murder : the tragical effect is overpowering, and it is extremely important to see how poetically Shakspeare could handle such a subject.

There have been still farther ascribed to him: 1st. The Merry Devil of Edmonton, a comedy in one act, printed in Dodsley's old plays. This has certainly some appearances in its favour. It contains a merry landlord, who bears great similarity to the one in the Merry Wives of Windsor. However, at all events, though an ingenious, it is but a hasty sketch. 2nd. The Accusation of Paris. 3rd. The Birth of Merlin. 4th. Edward the Third. 5th. The Fair Emma. 6th. Mucedorus. 7th. Arden of Feversham. I have never seen any of these, and cannot therefore say any thing respecting them. From the passages cited, I am led to conjecture that the subject of Mucedorus is the popular story of Valentine and Orson: a beautiful subject which Lope de Vega has also taken for a play. Arden of Feversham is said to be a tragedy on the story of a man, from whom the poet descended by the mother's side. If the quality of the piece is not too directly at variance with this claim, the circumstance would afford an additional probability in its favour. For such motives were not foreign to Shakspeare he treated Henry the Seventh, who bestowed lands on his forefathers for services performed by them, with a visible partiality.

Of Shakspeare's share in The Two Noble Cousins it

will be the time to speak when I come to mention Fletcher's works.

It would be very instructive, if it could be proved that several earlier attempts of works, afterwards rewritten, proceeded from himself, and not from an unknown author. We should thus be best enabled to trace his developement as an artist. Of the older King John, in two parts (printed by Steevens among six old plays), this might probably be made out. That he sometimes

came back to the same work is certain. We know witli respect to Hamlet, for instance, that it was very gradually formed by him to its present perfect state.

Whoever takes from Shakspeare a play early ascribed to him, and confessedly belonging to his time, is unquestionably bound to answer, with some degree of probability, this question: who has then written it? Shakspeare's competitors in the dramatic walk are pretty well known, and if those of them who have even acquired a considerable name, a Lilly, a Marlow, a Heywood, are still so very far below him, we can hardly imagine, that the author of a work, which rises so high beyond theirs, would have remained unknown.

LECTURE XIII.

Two periods of the English theatre; the first the most important. The first conformation of the stage, and its advantages. -State of the histrionic art in Shakspeare's time.-Antiquities of dramatic literature.-Lilly, Marlow, Heywood.-Ben Jonson.--Criticism of his works.-Masks.-Beaumont and Fletcher.-General characterisation of these poets, and remarks on some of their pieces.--Massinger and other contemporaries of Charles the First.-Closing of the stage by the Puritans.-Revival of the stage under Charles the Second.-Depravity of taste and morals.-Dryden, Otway, and others.-Characterisation of the comic poets from Wycherley and Congreve to the middle of the eighteenth century. Tragedies of the same period. Rowe. Addison's Cato.-Later pieces.-Familiar Tragedy: Lillo.-Garrick.-Latest state.

THE great master of whom we have spoken in the preceding Lecture forms such a singular exception to the whole history of art, that we are compelled to assign a particular place to him. He owed hardly any thing to his predecessors, and he has had the greatest influence on his successors: but no man has yet learned from him his secret. For two whole centuries, during which his countrymen have diligently employed themselves in the cultivation of every branch of science and art, by their own confession, he has not only never yet been surpassed, but he has left every dramatic poet at a great distance behind him.