other scattered passages here and there, afford evidence that, if the author possessed little or nothing of what may be properly called dramatic power, he might, could he have shaken off the false learning and extravagance of his school, have produced something which with proper culture might have ripened into poetry :

"You mountain nymphs which in these deserts reign,
Cease off your hasty chase of savage beasts!
Prepare to see a heart oppress'd with care;
Address your ears to hear a mournful style!
No human strength, no work can work my weal,
Care in my heart so tyrant-like doth deal.
You Dryades and lightfoot Satyri,
You gracious fairies, which at even-tide
Your closets leave, with heavenly beauty stor'd,
And on your shoulders spread your golden locks;
You savage bears, in caves and darken'd dens,
Come wail with me the martial Locrine's death;
Come mourn with me for beauteous Estrild's death!
Ah! loving parents, little do you know

What sorrow Sabren suffers for your thrall."

Can we then believe that Locrine' was the earliest work of Shakspere, as Tieck would believe? or are we to think with Schlegel that it belongs to the same class, and the same hand, as Titus Andronicus?' We doubt much whether it is the work of a very young man at all. It is wrought up to the author's conception of a dramatic poem; it has no inequalities; its gross defects were intended to be beauties. It was written unquestionably by one who had received a scholastic training, and who saw the whole world of poetry in the remembrance of what he had read; he looked not upon the heart of men; he looked not even upon the commonest features of external nature. Did Shakspere work thus in the poems that we know he produced when a young man? Assuredly not. If his training had been scholastic, his good sense would have taught him to see something in poetry besides the echo of his scholarship. Nor can Locrine' be compared with 'Titus Andronicus.' The faults of that play are produced by the uncontrolled energy which, straining for effect in action and passion, destroys even its own strength through the absence of calmness and repose. Even Shakspere could not at first perceive the universal truth which is contained in his own particular direction to the players :-"In the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness." We have already apprised our readers that the opinions we enter

tain with regard to the authorship of Locrine' are directly opposed to those of Tieck, who has translated the play. The passages we have selected are, we think, fair examples of the average character of the poetry; but Tieck has pointed out one passage which he considers demonstrative of the hand of Shakspere. He supposes that Locrine' was enlarged and improved by our poet previous to the edition of 1595; and he says "In this new edition are doubtless added many verses adapted to the circumstances of the time; but particularly the beautiful rhymed stanzas in the fourth act, which so distinctly remind us of his Sonnets and the Venus and Adonis,' that these alone would prove the genuineness of the drama." We subjoin the stanzas :

"Enter Soldiers, leading in Estrild.

Est. What prince soe'er, adorn'd with golden crown,
Doth sway the regal sceptre in his hand,

And thinks no chance can ever throw him down,

Or that his state shall everlasting stand,

Let him behold poor Estrild in this plight,
The perfect platform of a troubled wight.
Once was I guarded with Mavortial bands,
Compass'd with princes of the noble blood;
Now am I fallen into my foemen's hands,
And with my death must pacify their mood.
O life, the harbour of calamities!

O death, the haven of all miseries!

I could compare my sorrows to thy woe,

Thou wretched queen of wretched Pergamus,

But that thou view'dst thy enemies' overthrow.

Nigh to the rock of high Caphareus

Thou saw'st their death, and then departedst thence:

I must abide the victors' insolence.

The gods, that pitied thy continual grief,

Transform'd thy corpse, and with thy corpse thy care:

Poor Estrild lives, despairing of relief,

For friends in trouble are but few and rare.

What said I, few? ay, few, or none at all,

For cruel Death made havoc of them all.

Thrice happy they whose fortune was so good

To end their lives, and with their lives their woes!

Thrice hapless I, whom Fortune so withstood,

That cruelly she gave me to my foes!

O soldiers, is there any misery

To be compar'd to Fortune's treachery?"

THE mode in which some of the German critics have spoken of this play is a rebuke to dogmatic assertions and criticism. Schlegel says-putting 'Sir John Oldcastle,' Thomas Lord Cromwell,' and "The Yorkshire Tragedy' in the same class-"The three last pieces are not only unquestionably Shakspere's, but in my opinion they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works. .

cal dramas, and models in this species; the first is linked, from its
subject, to Henry VIII.,' and the second to Henry V.'" Tieck
is equally confident in assigning the authorship of this play to
Shakspere. Ulrici, on the contrary, takes a more sober view of
the matter. He says "The whole betrays a poet who endea-
voured to form himself on Shakspere's model, nay, even to imitate
him, but who stood far below him in mind and talent." Our own
critics, relying upon the internal evidence, agreed in rejecting it.
Malone could "not perceive the least trace of our great poet in
any part of this play.". He observes that it was originally entered
on the Stationers' registers without the name of Shakspere; but he
does not mention the fact that of two editions printed in 1600 one
bears the name of Shakspere, the other not. The one which has
the name says—“As it hath bene lately acted by the Right honor-
able the Earle of Notingham, Lord High Admirall of England, his
Seruants." In 1594 a play of Shakspere's might have been acted,
as, we believe, 'Hamlet' was, at Henslowe's theatre, which was
that of the Lord High Admiral his servants; but in 1600 a play of
Shakspere's would have unquestionably been acted by the Lord
Chamberlain his servants. However, this conjectural evidence is
quite unnecessary. Henslowe, the head of the Lord Admiral's
company, as we learn by his diary, on the 16th of October, 1599,
paid "for The first part of the Lyfe of Sir Jhon Ouldcastell, and
in earnest of the Second Pte, for the use of the company, ten
pound;" and the money was received by "Thomas Downton
"to pay Mr. Monday, Mr. Drayton, Mr. Wilson, and Hathaway."
We might here dismiss the question of the authorship of this play,
did it not furnish a very curious example of the imperfect manner
in which it was attempted to imitate the excellence and to rival the
popularity of Shakspere's best historical plays at the time of their
original production. It is not the least curious also of the circum-
stances connected with The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle,'
that, whilst the bookseller affixed the name of Shakspere to the per-
formance, it has been supposed that the Falstaff of his Henry IV.'
was pointed at in the following prologue :-

"The doubtful title, gentlemen, prefix'd
Upon the argument we have in hand,
May breed suspense, and wrongfully disturb
The peaceful quiet of your settled thoughts.
To stop which scruple, let this brief suffice:
It is no pamper'd glutton we present,

Nor aged counsellor to youthful sin,

6

A valiant martyr, and a virtuous peer;
In whose true faith and loyalty, express'd
Unto his sovereign and his country's weal,
We strive to pay that tribute of our love

Your favours merit. Let fair truth be grac`d,
Since forg'd invention former time defac'd."

In the Introductory Notice to Henry IV.' we have adverted to the opinion that the Sir John Falstaff of Shakspere's 'Henry IV.' was originally called Sir John Oldcastle; and the question is again touched upon in the Introductory Notice to 'The Merry Wives of Windsor.' The line in the prologue which we have just quoted"Since forg'd invention former time defac'd "—

might appear to point to an earlier period of the stage than that in which Shakspere's Henry IV.' was produced. Indeed, the old play of 'The Famous Victories' contains the character of Sir John Oldcastle. He is a low, ruffianly sort of fellow, who may be called "an aged counsellor to youthful sin;" but he is not represented as "a pampered glutton." In the Notice to Henry IV.' we said"In our opinion, there was either another play besides The Famous Victories' in which the name of Oldcastle was introduced, or the remarks of contemporary writers applied to Shakspere's Falstaff, who had originally borne the name of Oldcastle. The following passage is from Fuller's Church History: Stage-poets have themselves been very bold with, and others very merry at, the memory of Sir John Oldcastle, whom they have fancied a boon companion, a jovial royster, and a coward to boot. The best is, Sir John Falstaff hath relieved the memory of Sir John Oldcastle, and of late is substituted buffoon in his place.' This description of Fuller cannot apply to the Sir John Oldcastle of The Famous Victories.' The dull dog of that play is neither a jovial companion nor a coward to boot." We added,-" Whether or not Shakspere's Falstaff was originally called Oldcastle, he was, after the character was fairly established as Falstaff, anxious to vindicate himself from the charge that he had attempted to represent the Oldcastle of history. In the epilogue to The Second Part of Henry IV.' we find this passage:- For anything I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat, unless already he be killed with your hard opinions; for Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man.'' The Second Part of Henry IV.,' the epilogue of which contains this passage, was entered in the Stationers' registers in 1600, and was published in that year. When The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle' was published in the same year, Falstaff is distinctly recognised as the