Beaumont died in 1615, Fletcher in 1625, and Jonfon in 1637. My refearches, however, were not continued below the year 1632, the date of the fecond edition of Shakspeare.

Let it be added to the praises of our Author, that if he did not begin to write till 1593, nor ceafed till within three years of his death, which happened in 1616; in the courfe of twenty years he had produced no less than thirty-five plays, admitting that the eight others (amongft which is to be reckoned Titus Andronicus) were fpurious. I feize this opportunity, however, to exprefs my doubts concerning all but the last mentioned piece. and Locrine. Locrine hath only the letters W. S. prefixed to it; and exhibits internal proofs that it was not only the compofition of a scholar but of a pedant. Neither has it ever yet been fufficiently proved, that it was once cuftomary to fet the names of celebrated living authors at full length in the title-pages to the works of others, or to enter them under thefe falfe colours in the books of Stationers Hall. Such frauds, indeed, have been attempted at a later period, but with little fuccefs. The moft inconfiderable of all the pieces rejected by the editors of Shakspeare, is the Yorkshire Tragedy; and yet in 16c8 it was both registered and publifhed with his name. At this time too, he was probably in London, prefiding at the Globe Theatre, in confequence of the licence granted by king James I. to him and his fellow-comedians in 1603. The Yorkshire Tragedy is only one out of four short dramas which were exhibited for the entertainment of a fingle evening, as the title-page informs us; and perhaps would have been forgotten, with the other three, but that it was known to have been the work of our celebrated Author. Such mifcellaneous reprefentations were not uncommon, and the Reader will find a fpecimen of them in the tenth volume of Mr. Seyward's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. Shakspeare, who hath expreffed fuch a folicitude that his Clowns fhould speak no more than what was fet down for them, would naturally have taken fome opportunity to fhew his impatience at being rendered anfwerable, in a ftill more decifive manner, for entire compofitions which were not his own. It is poffible, likewife, that the copies of the plays omitted in the first folio, had been already difpofed of to proprietors, out of whofe hands they could not be redeemed or if Heminge and Condell were * difcerning friends to the reputation of their affociate, confcious, as they might have been, that fuch pieces were his, they would have omitted them by defign, as inferior to his other productions. From this inferiority, and from a cast of style occafion

If the original editors of Shakspeare were discerning friends to the reputation of their affociate, how came Titus Andronicus to find a place amongst his works in their own edition? Rev.

ally

ally different, nothing relative to their authenticity can, with exactness, be inferred; for, as Dr. Johnfon very justly obferves on a fimilar occafion, "There is little refemblance between the first works of Raphael and the laft." But could it even be proved that thefe rejected pieces were not among the earliest effufions of Shakspeare, fuch proofs would by no means affect their authenticity; as both Dryden and Rowe, after having written their beft plays, are known to have produced others, which reflect a very inconfiderable degree of honour on their memory."

These reasonings in favour of the rejected plays, which had been originally attributed to Shakspeare, are exceedingly plaufible; but whether they will be confidered as decifive, we prefume not to determine. Perhaps they have been rejected too precipitately, through an implicit dependence on the authority of Mr. Pope; whofe reafons for their total omiffion were, however, very far from being conclufive.

The most curious and important fupplement to the prefaces of the former edition, is an attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays attributed to Shakspeare were written,' by Mr. Malone. Of this attempt,' Mr. Steevens makes the following handsome acknowledgment. By the aid of the registers at Stationers Hall, and fuch internal evidences as the pieces themfelves fupply, he [Mr. Malone] hath fo happily accomplished his undertaking, that he only leaves me the power to thank him for an arrangement which I profess my inability either to dispute or to improve.'

Of the fuccefs of this undertaking Mr. Malone fpeaks in the following modeft and candid manner: After the most diligent enquiries, very few particulars have been recovered refpecting Shakspeare's private life or literary history; and while it hath been the endeavour of all his editors and commentators to illuftrate his obfcurities, and to regulate and correct his text, no attempt hath been made to trace the progrefs and order of his plays. Yet, furely, it is no incurious. fpeculation to mark the * gradations by which he rofe from mediocrity to the fummit of excellence: from artless and uninterefting dialogues, to those unrivalled compofitions which have rendered him the delight and wonder of fucceffive ages.

It is not pretended that a regular fcale of gradual improvement is here prefented to the Public: or that if even Shakspeare himself had left us a chronological lift of his dramas, it would exhibit fuch a fcale. All that is meant is, that as his knowledge increased, and he became more converfant with the stage and with life, his performances, in general, were written more happily, and with greater

art.

Rev. Jan. 1780.

C

The

The materials for afcertaining the order in which his plays were written, are indeed fo few, that it is to be feared nothing very decifive can be produced on this fubject. In the following attempt to trace the progrefs of his dramatic art, probability alone is pretended to. The filence and inaccuracy of those perfons who, after his death, had the revifal of his papers, will, perhaps, for ever prevent our attaining to any thing like proof on this head. Little then remains, but to collect into one view, from his several dramas, and from the ancient tracts in which they are mentioned, or alluded to, all the circumftances that can throw any light on this new and curious inquiry. From thefe circumstances, and from the entries in the books of the Stationers Company, extracted, and now first published by Mr. Steevens (to whom every admirer of Shakspeare has the highest obligations), it is probable that the plays attributed to our Author were nearly written in the following fucceffion, which, though it cannot at this day be afcertained to be their true order, may yet be confidered as approaching nearer to it than any which has been obferved in the various editions of his works. The rejected plays are here enumerated with the reft; but no opinion is thereby meant to be given concerning their authenticity. Of the nineteen genuine plays, which were not printed in our Author's life-time, the majority of them were, I believe, late compofitions. The following arrangement is, in fome meafure, formed on this idea.

The dates of the feveral plays are arranged by Mr. Malone in the following order:

N. B. The rejected plays, which had been admitted in the 3d and 4th editions of the laft century, and alfo by Mr. Rowe, are, in the following lift, marked by Italics; and thofe which were not printed till after the Author's death, and made their first appearance in the folio edition of his plays in 1623, are diftinguished by an afterisk.

*

1. Titus Andronicus, 1589. [This play, though admitted by all the Editors, yet is generally fuppofed to be fpurious.] 2. Love's Labour Lott, 1591. 3. *First Part of King Henry VI. 1591. 4. Second Part of Henry VI. 159!. 5. Third Part of ditto, 1592. 6. Pericles, 1592. 7. Locrine, 1593. 8. * The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 1593- 9. The Winter's Tale, 1594 10. Midfummer Night's Dream, 1595. 11. Romeo and Juliet, 1595. 12. The Comedy of Errors, 1596. 13. Hamlet, 1596. * 14. King John, 1596. 15. King Richard the IId. 1597. 16. King Richard the IIId. 1597. 17. Firft Part of King Henry IV. 1597. 18. Merchant of Venice, 1598. 19. All's Well that Ends Well, 1598. 20. Sir John Oldcastle, 1598. 21. Second Part of King Henry IV. 1598. 22. King Henry V. 1599. 23. The Puritan, 1600.

*

3

24.

34.

*

*

24. Much-ado about Nothing, 1600. 25. As you like it, 1600. 26. Merry Wives of Windfor, 1601. 27. King Henry VIII. 1601. 28. Life and Death of Lord Cromwell, 1602. 29. Troilus and Creffida, 1602. 30. * Meafure for Measure, 1603. 31. Cymbeline, 1604. * 32. The London Prodigal, 1605. 33. King Lear, 1605. Macbeth, 1606. Taming of the Shrew, 1606. 37. A Yorkshire Tragedy, 1608. 1608. 39. Coriolanus, 1609. 1610. 41. Othello, 1611. * 43.

Twelfth Night, 1614.'

*

*

35. The 36. Julius Cæfar, 1607. 38. Anthony and Cleopatra, 40. Timon of Athens, * 42. The Tempest, 1612.

We must not follow this ingenious Writer through every part of his elaborate enquiry,-in which we find much curious criticism interfperfed with a number of entertaining anecdotes :but we cannot take our leave of Mr. Malone, without prefenting a fpecimen or two of his manner of treating the fubject. We fhall produce his account of Titus Andronicus and Macbeth.

In what year our Author began to write for the stage, or which was his firft performance, has not been hitherto ascertained. And indeed we have fo few lights to direct our enquiries, that any fpeculation on this fubject may appear an idle expence of time. But the method which has been already marked out, requires that fuch facts fhould be mentioned as may ferve in any manner to elucidate these points.

Shakspeare was born on the 23d of April 1564, and was probably married in, or before September 1582; his eldest daughter Sufanna having been baptifed on the 26th of May 1583. At what time he left Warwickshire, or was first employed in the play-houfe, tradition doth not inform us. However, as his fon Samuel and his daughter Judith were baptifed at Stratford Feb. 2, 1584-5, we may prefume that he had not left the country at that time.

He could not have wanted an eafy introduction to the theatre, for Thomas Green, a celebrated comedian, was his townfman, and, probably, his relation; and Michael Drayton was likewife born in Warwickshire: the latter was nearly of his own age, and both were in fome degree of reputation foon after the year 1590. If I were to indulge a conjecture, the middle of the year 1591 I fhould name as the era when our Author commenced a writer for the stage; at which time he was somewhat more than twenty-feven years of age. The reasons that induce me to fix on that period are thefe: In Webbe's Difcourfe of Englifh Poetry, published in 1586, we meet with the names of moft of the celebrated poets of that time, particularly those of George Whetstone and Antony Munday, who were dramatic writers; but we find no trace of our Author, or any of his

C 2

works.

works. Three years afterwards Puttenham printed his Art of English Poefy; and in that work alfo we look in vain for the name of Shakspeare. Sir John Harrington, in his Apologie for Poetry, prefixed to the Tranflation of Arioflo (which was entered in the Stationers' books, Feb. 26, 1590-1, in which year it was printed), takes occafion to fpeak of the theatre, and mentions fome of the celebrated dramas of that time; but fays not a word of Shakspeare or any of his plays. If even Love's Labour Loft had then appeared, which was probably his first dramatic compofition, is it imaginable that Harrington fhould have mentioned the Cambridge Pedantius, and The Play of the Cards (which laft he tells us was a London comedy), and have passed by, unnoticed, the new prodigy of the dramatic world?

However, that Shakspeare had commenced a writer for the stage, and even excited the jealoufy of his contemporaries, before Sept. 1592, is now decifively proved by a paffage, extracted by Mr. Tyrwhitt from Robert Greene's Groatsworth of Wit bought with a Million of Repentance, in which there is an evident allufion to our Author's name, as well as to one of his plays.

The paffage to which this obfervation refers is too curious to be omitted; and we fhall prefent our Readers with Mr. Tyrwhitt's own account of it.. - Though the objections which have been raised to the genuineness of the three plays of Henry VIth have been fully confidered and answered by Dr. Johnfon, it may not be amifs to add here, from a contemporary writer, a paffage which not only points at Shakspeare as the author of them, but also fhews, that however meanly we may now think of them, in comparison with his later productions, they had, at the time of their appearance, a fufficient degree of excellence to alarm the jealoufy of the older play-wrights. The paffage, to which I refer, is in a pamphlet entitled Greene's Greatfworth of Witte, fuppofed to have been written by that volumi. nous author Robert Greene, M. A. and faid in the title page to be published at his dying requeft; probably about 1592. The conclufion of this piece is an addrefs to his brother-poets, to diffuade them from writing any more for the stage, on account of the ill-treatment which they were used to receive from the players. "Truft them not (fays he), for there is an upftart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygres Head wrapt in a Player's Hyde, fuppofes that he is as well able to bombafte out a blancke verfe as the best of you; and being an abfolute Johannes Fac-totum, is in his own conceit the only SHAKE SCENE in the countrey." There can be no doubt, I think, that Shakspeare is alluded to by the expreffion Shake-fcene, or that his Tygres Head wrapt in a Player's Hyde is a parody upon the following line of York's fpeech to Margaret, in Third Part of Henry VI. A&t I. Scene 4th.

Oh Tygres Heart wrapt in a Woman's Hide !"

[Vol. vi, p. 566.]

• At