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, 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, And thinks no chance can ever throw him down, Or that his state shall everlasting stand, Let him behold poor Estrild in this plight, 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 "The doubtful title, gentlemen, prefix'd Nor aged counsellor to youthful sin, 6 A valiant martyr, and a virtuous peer; Your favours merit. Let fair truth be grac`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 |