and we not unnaturally conclude, from his reproof of those clowns, who say more than is set down for them, that the habit of extemporising remained, even when the piece had been fully written.*

Again, we may not unfairly infer that Italian pantomimic acting was known in England before Shakespeare's time. True, it may be, that John Rich, the contemporary of Garrick, who played under the name of Lun, was the first to introduce the dumb-show we call pantomime; but the Italian mimics were not dumb. And, as D'Israeli suggests, their capitan, a reproduction of the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, may have been the type of our Pistols and Bobadils; as the inferior characters may have given the idea of our witty or quasi-witty clowns.

* In the Italian extemporal comedy a succession of scenes were inscribed on the scenario, the dialogue being left to the impromptu invention of the performers. D'Israeli gives the following description of the plot of the Seven Deadly Sins found at Dulwich. It is written, he says, in two columns on a pasteboard about fifteen inches high, and nine in breadth. "A tent being placed on the stage for Henry the Sixth, he in it asleep. To him the lieutenant and a pursuivant (R. Cowley-Jo. Duke) and one warder (R. Pallant). To them Pride, Gluttony, Wrath and Covetousness, at one door, at another door Envy, Sloth, and Lechery. The three put back the four, and so exeunt. Henry awaking, enter a keeper (J. Sincler); to him a servant (T. Belt); to him Lidgate; then Envy passeth over the stage. Lidgate speaks."

We are not forgetting those Court Masques, which formed so striking a contrast in their magnificence to the squalid representations on the professional stage. They formed no part of the popular drama, but were amusements confined to the Court and the great families ; and they cannot be included in the true dramatic art. They were classical allegories, attempting no delineation of character in action, their representatives speaking without passion, and only being distinguishable by their dress and ornaments. See Francis Bacon's 'Essay on Masques.'

From what has thus been shown we conclude that, though still in its infancy, the English drama had commenced its career twenty-eight years before Shakespeare appeared.

CHAPTER III.

SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS.

The Plays Their Characteristics.

THERE is a similarity between the works of Homer and Shakespeare which must strike every student. As the former contains the great masterpieces, the Iliad' and 'Odyssey,' and the less meritorious Batrachomyomachia,' Hymns and Epigrams, so the latter has his inimitable plays, and the inferior poems of Venus and Adonis,' the Rape of Lucrece,' Sonnets, &c.; and as Homer is best known to us as the author of the Iliad' and 'Odyssey,' so Shakespeare, in his plays, is "familiar in our mouths as household words." But the plays, so far as we know, did not create any great popular sensation. Indeed, from all we hear, Kydd's 'Hieronimo,' Preston's 'Cambyses,' and Chapman's 'Bussy d'Ambois' were as great favourites with the town as 'Hamlet' or Romeo and Juliet.' It may have been that the new

drama was above the tastes of the general public; or that, on its first introduction, the pieces composing it wore a ruder shape than they subsequently attained. As they now appear, however, there can be no doubt that, with some exceptions, they are immeasurably superior to their contemporaries. Their characters are more distinct and natural, and their action more animated, while their declamation is enriched with such striking thoughts and beautiful expressions as we find nowhere else.

Their characteristics may be placed under the heads of STRUCTURAL, LITERARY, and QUALITA

TIVE.

Under the head of STRUCTURAL the first trait which strikes us is verisimilitude. The plots, it must be allowed, constantly violate probability; but the characters and incidents are always consistent with experience. As Dr. Johnson says, "The event represented will not happen; but if it were possible, its effects would probably be such as are assigned." Thus Caliban is a creature unknown to humanity, but he acts and speaks as such a being would do, if it did exist. Then Shakespeare is almost alone among contemporaries and successors in frequently rejecting love

6

as the motive of his drama. Thus love is entirely absent from Macbeth,' 'Henry IV.,' 'Julius Cæsar,' Coriolanus,' 'Timon of Athens,' Richard II.' and 'King John ;' while its presence is only an incumbrance in the Merchant of Venice,' Lear,' and ‘A Midsummer Night's Dream.' Then the blending of comedy with tragedy is a peculiarity of his drama, which has found no imitators and very few apologists. And lastly, the want of moral purpose is peculiarly his own. Dr. Johnson says, "He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is much more careful to please than instruct. From his writings, indeed, a system of social duty may be selected, for he that thinks reasonably must think morally; but his precepts and axioms drop casually from him; he makes no just distribution of good or evil" (p. xxxviii). He writes, in fact, as immoral men generally act, praising virtue with the mouth, but practising vice in the life. Not one of his plots brings the virtuous out in triumph. Lear seems intended as a reproof of filial ingratitude, and Hamlet as a commendation of filial piety; but Regan and Goneril suffer no worse fate than Cordelia, while Hamlet is involved in the same destruction as the King and Queen. The Merchant of