days, when a play was wanted in a hurry, to set two or three, or even four hands, at work upon it; and the occasion of the Princess Elizabeth's marriage (February, 1612-1613) may very likely have suggested the production of a play representing the marriage of Henry VIII. and Anne Bullen. I should con

jecture that Shakspere had conceived the idea of a great historical drama on the subject of Henry VIII., which would have included the divorce of Katharine, the fall of Wolsey, the rise of Cranmer, the coronation of Anne Bullen, and the final separation of the English from the Romish Church, which being the one great historical event of the reign, would naturally be chosen as the focus of poetic interest; that he had proceeded in the execution of this idea as far, perhaps, as the third act. when finding that his fellows of the Globe were in distress for a new play to honour the marriage of the Lady Elizabeth with, he thought that his half-finished work might help them, and accordingly handed them his manuscript to make what they could of it; that they put it into the hands of Fletcher (already in high repute as a popular and expeditious playwright), who, finding the original design not very suitable to the occasion, and utterly beyond his capacity, expanded the three acts into five, by interspersing scenes of show and magnificence, and passages of description and long poetical conversations, in which his strength lay. . . . and so turned out a splendid'historical masque or show-play,' which was, no doubt, very popular then, as it has been ever since." There are three great figures in the play clearly and strongly conceived by Shakspere: The King, Queen Katharine, and Cardinal Wolsey. The Queen is one of the noble, long-enduring sufferers, just-minded, disinterested, truly charitable, who give their moral gravity and grandeur to Shakspere's last plays. She has clear-sighted penetration to see through the Cardinal's cunning practice, and a lofty indignation against what is base, but no unworthy personal resentment. Henry, if we judge him sternly, is cruel and self

indulgent; but Shakspere will hardly allow us to judge Henry sternly. He is a lordly figure, with a full, abounding strength of nature, a self-confidence, an ease and mastery of life, a power of effortless sway, and seems born to pass on in triumph over those who have fallen and are afflicted. Wolsey is drawn with superb power ambition, fraud, vindictiveness, have made him their own, yet cannot quite ruin a nature possessed of noble qualities. It is hard at first to refuse to Shakspere the authorship of Wolsey's famous soliloquy in which he bids his greatness farewell (Act III. Sc. ii. L. 350-372), but it is certainly Fletcher's, and when one has perceived this, one perceives also that it was an error ever to suppose it written in Shakspere's manner. The scene in which the vision appears to the dying Queen is also Fletcher's, and in his highest style. We can see from the play that if Shakspere had returned at the age of fifty to the historical drama, the works written then would have been greater in moral grandeur than those written from his thirtieth to his thirty-fifth years.

Henry VIII., as the verse tests show, was probably written after Winter's Tale, 1611, and it must of course have been written before June 1613. The name All is True, under which it was acted in that year, is referred to in the prologue to the play.

Of doubtful plays two may be noticed :

41. Doubtful Plays.--(i.) The Two Noble Kinsmen was printed in quarto, 1634, on the title-page of which edition the play is stated to have been written by "the admirable worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakspeare." One feels upon reading it that there are certainly two authors. Fletcher's hand is present beyond any doubt; and if the second writer were not Shakspere, we have to ask wonderingly: Who Icould he have been? Who could have written in a manner which is so like the manner of Cymbeline, except the author of Cymbeline? A division of the play between the two writers was made by Mr. Hickson, chiefly upon grounds furnished by the differences

of style. The following portions were assigned by him to Shakspere: Act I., except parts of Sc. ii., which was either written by Shakspere and Fletcher in conjunction, or by Fletcher, and revised by Shakspere ; Act II. Sc. i.; Act III. Sc. i., ii.; Act IV. Sc. iii.; Act V. (except Sc. ii). This division was subsequently confirmed by Mr. Fleay's application of the double-ending test, by Mr. Furnivall's application of the stopped-line test, and by Professor Ingram's application of the weak-ending test. It must be noted, however, that while the evidence of the presence of two hands in the play is convincing, the most competent critics hesitate to make the assertion that either of the writers was Shakspere. The following figures exhibit the results of the verse test: Light endings, Shakspere's part, 1 in 21; Fletcher's, 1 in 445; weak endings, Shakspere's part, 1 in 32, Fletcher's, 1 in 1426. Unstopped lines, Shakspere's part, I in 21; Fletcher's, 1 in 5:26. Double endings, Shakspere's part, 1 in 3'4; Fletcher's, 1 in 1*9. the main the division made by Professor Spalding in his Letter on Shakspere's Authorship of Two Noble Kinsmen (reprinted by the New Shakspere Society, 1876), and by Mr. Littledale in his admirable edition of the play (New Shakspere Society, 1876) agrees with that of Mr. Hickson.

In

The Shakspere portions of the play will repay a careful study. The characterisation may be faint, but there are animated pieces of dialogue, magnificent single speeches, and remarkable Shaksperian turns of expression and imagery. The story is derived from Chaucer's Knightes Tale. The underplot of Fletcher, made up of indecency and of trash in about equal proportions, is but slightly connected with the nobler portion of the drama. Shakspere's portion was probably written before his latest fragment-that of Henry VIII. He was at this time abandoning dramatic authorship, and seems to have been willing that Fletcher should be the heir to his genius.

(ii.)Edward III.—It has been held by some critics

that, in this play, the episode of King Edward's attempt upon the honour of the Countess of Salisbury-nobly repulsed by her-is by Shakspere, i.e. from the entrance of the King, Act I. Sc. ii. to end of Act II. The play was entered in the Stationers' register, Dec. 1, 1595, and was published in the following year. If, therefore, any portion was from Shakspere's hand, it is of early date. The question of Shakspere's authorship of the episode must be said to remain up to the present in doubt. Edward III. is reprinted in the Tauchnitz edition of Doubtful Plays of Shakespeare.

(iii.) Other plays which have been ascribed to Shakspere are Fair Emm, George-a-Green, The Merry Devil of Edmonton, Arden of Feversham, Mucedorus, The Birth of Merlin, 'Larum for London, Warning for Fair Women. Add the list from the Third Folio (p. 30). If any one of these has any claim to be considered, even in part, Shakspere's, it is the Yorkshire Tragedy.

CHAPTER VII.

SHAKSPERE FROM 1616 TO 1877.

1. 1616 to 1642.-During Shakspere's life he was upon the whole the most steadily popular playwright of his time; but for awhile the slighter sentiment and the novel plots of Beaumont and Fletcher may have proved more attractive with the public. Ben Jonson, who survived Shakspere for many years, gathered about him a school of younger writers, and though never a great favourite with the people, was looked up to as a master by those who cared more for vigorous thought and a scholarly style than for human passion and imaginative truth. The publication, however, of two folio editions of Shakspere's plays within nine years of each other, proves the interest still taken in

his writings; and prefixed to the second folio is an enthusiastic tribute from a young poet, whose homage was alone worth that of a multitude-the first published verses of John Milton. We know also that one whom Milton did not honour-Charles I.—agreed with Milton in honouring Shakspere, and that his plays were frequently represented at St. James's and Whitehall.

2. The Restoration Period. The civil wars and the victory of Puritanism were, of course, unfavourable to the culture of dramatic poetry. In 1642 the theatres were closed, and they remained so (excepting some irregular performances) until the latter end of the year 1659. During Charles II.'s reign there were two currents of feeling with reference to Shakspere and the Elizabethan drama; it was impossible to deny the power and attraction of the works of the greatest English dramatic poet, but French tastes had begun to prevail, and much in Shakspere appeared antiquated, rude, inartistic, almost barbarous. Davenant, who was not unwilling to be supposed a natural son of Shakspere, revived the great tragedies and some of the comedies and histories; Killigrew's new theatre opened with Henry IV.; the wonderful actor Betterton appeared as Hamlet in the first play of Shakspere represented after the Restoration, and (actresses now taking the female parts) Mrs. Betterton played with her husband. For her Ophelia hints were received from Davenant, drawn from his memory of the boy-Ophelias of an earlier time; but her most celebrated Shaksperian character was Lady Macbeth. There is abundant evidence of Shakspere's popularity after the Restoration; it now, however, began to be thought needful to reform Shakspere to suit the taste of a refined and ingenious public. The attractions of spectacle and music were added to those of dramatic poetry. Dryden and Davenant altered The Tempest into The Enchanted Island, with song and show, with new characters ridiculously out of keeping with the original play, and the added zest of indecency. The method of improving Shakspere to please the town