in the following succession; which, though it cannot at this day be ascertained to be their true order, may yet be considered as approaching nearer to it than any which has been observed in the various editions of his works."

Some positions of this chronology rest on distinct and positive testimony, many are just deductions from certain premises, but others are the result of conjectures so refined, on allusions so obscure and dubious, as to mock the name of evidence.

years

Malone's arrangement was succeeded by the belief that the order of Shakspeare's plays exhibited the gradual expansion of their author's mind. But how stands the fact? In Shakspeare's long career of authorship, the brightest period is indisputably that which commences with the composition of Hamlet in 1600, and closes with Macbeth in 1606: it was between those that Lear and Othello were produced. Before the composition of Hamlet are found Richard II. and III., the Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet, King John, a Midsummer Night's Dream, the two parts of Henry IV. and Henry V., As You Like It, and Much Ado about Nothing. And what is the merit of Shakspeare's compositions, subsequently to the Macbeth, which transcends the excellence of these? The claims of Julius Cæsar, Antony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus,

which come under the last division, may be met by the two Richards and Henry V.: King John, an early play, is equal to Timon; the Two Gentlemen of Verona is a drama scarcely inferior to Cymbeline; and the Merchant of Venice of more merit than the Winter's Tale. Twelfth Night, written in 1607, is indeed a comedy of the highest excellence; but is Much Ado about Nothing lower in the rubrick? Nor is the Tempest, the last of Shakspeare's compositions, and admirable in its kind, without a rival in a Midsummer Night's Dream, which is among the earliest productions of his muse. The merits of Romeo and Juliet, the two parts of Henry IV., and the Taming of the Shrew, all early plays, still remain to be urged, and they surely throw a weight into the scale more than sufficient to counterbalance any exceptions that can be taken against the justice of the comparisons already made.

Many of the subjects of Shakspeare's dramas are foreign, and hence, and from the frequent knowledge he displays of classic history, mythology, and poetry, an idea has been indulged that his knowledge of languages was extensive. Ben Jonson, however, laments that his friend was master of "small Latin and less Greek." He acquired his Latin at the school at Stratford; for

that language was taught in all the grammatical institutions in England: with the source of his Greek we are not acquainted. Before the conclusion of the reign of Elizabeth, the most important works of the poets, historians, and philosophers of Greece and Rome were accessible to English readers; and though rude and uncritical, yet the early translations were sufficiently accurate for purposes of general information. Of these Shakspeare was an inquisitive and diligent reader, and hence he acquired that knowledge which has been sometimes hastily received as a proof of his classical attainments. With the languages of continental Europe his acquaintance did not perhaps extend beyond the French. His play of Henry V. proves his knowledge of that language, and all the tales whereon he grounded his plots existed either in French or English. Many of them were of Italian origin, and Italian literature was in high favour in his time; but as Shakspeare might have become acquainted with them through a French or English translation, we cannot absolutely infer his knowledge of the originals.

It happened to Shakspeare, as to many other eminent characters, to have works assigned to him of which he was not the author: these it is necessary to mention, though not to dwell

upon. It will be seen from the essay on Henry VI. why the play denominated the "first" of the three parts is omitted in the preceding list, though printed in the first folio. Titus Andro

nicus is also included in that collection, but the internal evidence of its spuriousness would out. weigh the testimony of fifty Heminges and Condells in its favour, and the same remark would have been extended to Locrine, The Loudon Prodigal, The Puritan, Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cromwell, and the Yorkshire Tragedy, had they appeared in the first folio instead of the third, a book of no authority whatever. The first editors of Shakspeare denied Pericles a place among his works, though it is now usually printed with his undisputed productions. The honour of this association has not been granted from any conviction of the authenticity of the play, but in complaisance to some trifling amendments made in it by Shakspeare. His hand is visible in a few scenes of Pericles, but only in particular passages of the dialogue, not in the. construction of the plot or the formation of the characters. Other dramas have been attributed to Shakspeare, but all on insufficient grounds. Besides his plays, he was indisputably the author of the poems of Venus and Adonis, the Rape of