more retrospective; hence he keeps looking back further and further in the history of his race to reach eternal principles. To trace the development of the individual Shakespeare we should by all means follow these plays after the order of their composition, which is for the most part backwards in time. As he recedes in the Past he deepens in thought, expression, and treatment. - Still, this is not the highest method of studying these works. History is chronological; its stream cannot be turned back by any individual standing in its coursenot even by Shakespeare. Its principles are to be shown by the Poet; the deepest thought of the epoch must be given by him; its profoundest struggle is always his most worthy theme. It is at this point, and at this point only, that Poetry and History meet. It is not necessary that the externalities of a nation or a period be given in their literal fidelity; this is, in fact, impossible. The costume, the language, the general coloring, may all be different from what they really were, but the spiritual conflict of the time must be shown in its verity. If, therefore, the Poet has taken a series of historical themes, they can be truly considered only in the order of history, which is successive in time; thus the thought of each epoch can be seen in its connection with the thought of succeeding epochs. A full explanation of Shakespeare's historical labors will demand something of a Philosophy of History. A slight sketch will show the outlines of his thought in this direction. Of the Greek historical age the Poet has left us no adequate portraiture, though the scene of action in several dramas is placed in the ancient Hellenic world. Troilus and Cressida is a decided approach toward an historical play, but, inasmuch as the subject is fabulous, and was a myth to the old Greeks themselves, it lacks one of the essential distinctions of history. Still, it exhibits the inherent principle of Greece in its political manifestation-the story of the Trojan war was always the best picture of Hellenism. Shakespeare has distinctly stated that the great fault of the Argive host before Troy was lack of subordination- -the individual asserted himself too strongly; authority- and, hence, organization - became impossible. This was the prime defect of Greece during her historical period also; she sought an absolute autonomy for state, tribe, community, city, individual. The result was internal strife and jealousy, in which all united action of the nation was generally lost. Thus the army before Ilium is an image of the Grecian world, and is suffering from the same malady which ultimately destroyed Greece; yet much of the special coloring of Troilus and Cressida is modern to a degree that makes it appear incongruous. This play has also the peculiarity of being the most reflective of all Shakespeare's writings, though its scene is laid in the most remote time. It also takes its place between the purely legendary and the purely historical dramas, forming a transition from the one and an introduction to the other. But it is Rome which exercises the strongest fascination over the Poet. Here, too, we have the assertion of individuality—not, however, that which excludes other cities and nations, but that which includes the whole world in the grasp of its ambition. Assimilation was the fundamental principle of Rome; it sought to make all peoples Roman Its intense nationality assailed nationality, destroyed the same, and therein destroyed itself. Because it was based on conquest, it naturally bore within its own bosom the germ of destruction. The strong national life of Rome subdued all to itself, both within and without; the negative sweep of its career involved the Family at home and the Nation abroad — that is, the Roman State sacrificed the domestic relation, and sought to wipe out the principle of nationality from the face of the earth. But it repaid the ruin which it wrought with infinite blessings. The universal sway of the Roman soldier has long since departed, but the universal sway of Roman spirit still prevails in our laws and municipal institutions. The series of Roman Historical plays will show various phases of development in the Roman principle. The prologue is Coriolanus, which exhibits this people in preparation for the conquest of the world. The drama portrays mainly the internal struggles of Rome, to subordinate which produces so much strength of character. The State gets rid of the mighty individual in Coriolanus, and finds an instrument for counteracting his hostility. The State absorbs the Family—even in its supreme female representative, the mother; Volumnia cares not for her son as son, but only as Roman. The State subjects Political Parties, which have to acknowledge it as their ultimate principle. The training is severe, but essential for the assurance of victory; the Roman national spirit must show itself more intense than any other, if its destiny be to subdue all nations. The world is conquered, and the great transition takes place from Republican Rome to Imperial Rome. The mighty conqueress had absorbed all people into herself, was gradually changed in character, and lost her primitive principle. Unity under one government has been her policy; this unity must logically be carried into her institutions; the multiplicity of the Senate and the People must sink into the unity of the absolute Monarch. To this great revolution are devoted two plays - Julius Cæsar and Antony and Cleopatra-which form the culmination of the Roman Historical series. The former introduces at once the heroic individual, who has already unified in himself the whole Roman world. Between him and the supporters of the old constitution a conflict arises, which destroys him, though his principle is triumphant. There is, however, no single individual left who can unite all the contending elements; hence the play of Julius Cæsar stops with the Triumviratea mere breathing-place in the rapid flight toward Imperialism. In Antony and Cleopatra the transition is completed; the three men of the Triumvirate are reduced to one, who is now the Emperor. The career of Rome cannot stop till all known nations are consolidated into one government, under one law, and administered by one ruler. It is a world-historical epoch, for the whole world participates in the change. To make the thought of these two plays complete, the earlier period of Cæsar's life, embracing his struggle with, and triumph over, Pompey, ought to be supplied. It is manifest that the Poet had mastered the historical details and thought out the conflicting principles of that time. Thus no link would be missing; the cycle would be full; the transition from the Republic to the Empire would be shown in all essential phases. But any intention on the part of the Poet to write such a drama cannot be proven. The result of Roman conquest and civil organization was the destruction of the nations. The world became Roman; it was assimilated; a dull uniformity resulted, which deadened all vigor of mind and body. Nationality must be restored to the human race, the massive Roman Empire must be broken to fragments, and each fragment wrought into a new nation. This is accomplished by the Northern Barbarians, who fall upon the enervated people of the South; each tribe takes a slice of territory. It is a time of social disintegration, in which the youthful Shakespeare found a theme as congenial as the Yorkian Tetralogy. For here Titus Andronicus must be placed; although under protest, it will have to be admitted into the series of historical plays, and into Shakespeare's dramatic family. In particular, his authorship of it cannot be rejected without undermining the external evidence upon which the most authentic of his plays repose. At this point the Roman Historical series comes to an end, having delineated the Roman world in its early struggles, in its culmination, and in its close. The restoration of nationality to Europe is the chief work of the Middle Ages. This is the next grand worldhistorical movement-the rise and development of the modern nation. The Teutonic tribe adopts the Roman law and institutions; the result is a wholly new world, composed of individual States living together like the members of a common organization. The family of nations is the friendly title which is often given to it, and which it, in the main, deserves. Of this family England may be fairly considered as the worthiest member in its political development. Nationality is its strongest principle, and, in general, it has acknowledged the same principle for other countries. Still, England has attempted the subjugation of its neighbors at various times, and |