have ever been deceived is a sign of the ignoble nature of the wretch. He feeds and grows strong upon garbage; physical nastinesses and moral sores are the luxuries of his imagination. The other characters, the brute warrior Ajax, the insolent self-worshipper Achilles, Hector, heroic but too careless how and when he expends his heroic strength, are of minor importance. As the blindness of youthful love is shown in Troilus, so old age in its least venerable form, given up to a gratification of sensuality by proxy, is exposed to derision in Pandar. The materials for Troilus and Cressida were found by Shakspere in Chaucer's Troilus and Cressida, Caxton's translation from the French, Recuyles, or Destruction of Troy, perhaps also Lydgate's Troye Boke. Thersites, he probably found in Book II. of Chapman's Homer. Shakspere's conception of Cressida and of Pandar differs widely from Chaucer's; in Shakspere's hands in accordance with the general design of the drama, Cressida and her uncle grow base and contemptible. Some critics have supposed that the love-story was written at a much earlier date than the part which treats of Ulysses; but we have seen that the contrasted characters of Troilus and Ulysses are both essential parts of the conception of the drama, and were created as counterparts."

The following table presents the plays in a series of groups which succeed one another in chronological order. The position of three or four plays of secondary importance may be doubtful; and I claim no certainty for the order of the plays within the groups; but I offer the arrangement of groups with great confidence as to its general correctness. It will be observed that in some cases one group overlaps in point of time that which follows it. To keep the comedies together I have placed Middle Tragedy" after the third division of what I have named "Later Comedy;" it will suffice if the reader bear in mind that as a fact the comedy overlaps the succeeding group of tragedies.

4. EARLY TRAGEDY.

Lear (1605).

Macbeth (1606).

Antony and Cleopatra (1607).

Romeo and Juliet ( two dates, Coriolanus (1608).

1591, 1597).

5. Middle HISTORY.

Richard II. (1594).
King John (1595).

6. MIDDLE COMEDY. Merchant of Venice (1596).

7. LATER HISTORY. History and Comedy united. 1 & 2 Henry IV. (1597-98). Henry V. (1599).

8. LATER COMEDY.

(a) Rough and boisterous comedy. Taming of the Shrew (? 1597). Merry Wives (? 1598).

Timon (1607-08).

"The student will observe in this arrangement, early, middle, and later Comedy; early, middle, and later History; and early, middle, and later Tragedy. only is it well to view the entire body of Shakspere's

Not

The

plays in the order of their chronological succession, but also to trace in chronological order the three separate lines of Comedy, History, and Tragedy. group named Romances connect themselves, of course, with the Comedies; but there is a grave element in them which is connected with the Tragedies which preceded them. It has been noticed that the Romances have in common the incidents of reunions, reconciliations, and the recovery of lost children. Shakspere, though so remarkable for his power of creating character, is not distinguished among dramatists for his power of inventing incident. Having found a situation which interested his imagination, or was successful on the stage, he introduced it again and again, with variations. Thus, in the Early Comedies, mistakes of identity, disguises, errors, and bewilderments, in various forms, recur as a source of merriment and material for adventure. In the Later Comedies, again, it is quite remarkable how Shakspere (generally in the portions of these plays which are due to his own invention) repeats, with variations, the incident of a trick or fraud practised upon one who is a self-lover, and its consequences, grave or gay. Thus Falstaff is fatuous enough to believe that two English matrons are dying of love for him, and is made the victim of their merry tricks. Malvolio is made an ass of by the mischievous Maria taking advantage of his solemn self-esteem; Beatrice and Benedick are cunningly entrapped, through their good-natured vanity, into love for which they had been already predisposed;

the boastful Parolles is deceived, flouted, and disgraced by his fellow-soldiers; and (Shakspere's mood growing earnest, and his thoughts being set upon deep questions of character) Angelo, the self-deceiver, by the craft of the Duke, is discovered painfully to the eyes of others and to his own heart."

For the index which adds to the usefulness of the present edition I have to thank my friend Mr Arthur E. Love of Trinity College, Dublin.

It has been a happiness to me to find that what I have written on Shakspere has been approved by distinguished Shakspere scholars in England, in Germany, in France, and in America. I do not thank my critics for their generous recognition of whatever may deserve commendation in my work; I may, however, at least express the sense of encouragement derived from what they have said. One of the earliest voices which spoke a word of emphatic approval of this book is now silent in death, and I cannot but desire to associate, at least by my grateful recollection, this Study of Shakspere with the honoured name of its reviewer in The Academy, the late Mr Richard Simpson.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

THE attempt made in this volume to connect the study of Shakspere's works with an inquiry after the personality of the writer, and to observe, as far as is possible, in its several stages the growth of his intellect and character from youth to full maturity, distinguishes the work from the greater number of preceding criticisms of Shakspere. A sense of hazard and difficulty necessarily accompanies the attempt to pass through the creations of a great dramatic poet to the mind of the creator. Still no one, I suppose, would maintain that a product of mind, so large and manifold as the writings of Shakspere, can fail in some measure to reveal its origin and cause.

The reader must not fall into the error of supposing that I endeavour to identify Shakspere with any one of his dramatic personages. The complex nature of the poet contained a love-idealist like Romeo-(students of the Sonnets will not find it difficult to admit the possibility of this); it contained a speculative intellect like that of Hamlet. But the complete Shakspere was unlike Romeo, and unlike Hamlet. Still it is evident not from one play, but from many, that the struggle between "blood" and "judgment" was a great affair of