whence Humber, as he went wasting the sea-coast, had led her captive; whom Locrine, though before contracted to the daughter of Corineus, resolves to marry. But being forced and threatened by Corineus, whose authority and power he feared, Guendolen the daughter he yields to marry, but in secret loves the other and ofttimes retiring, as to some private sacrifice, through vaults and passages made under ground, and seven years thus enjoying her, had by her a daughter equally fair, whose name was Sabra. But when once his fear was off, by the death of Corineus, not content with secret enjoyment, divorcing Guendolen, he made Estrildis now his queen. Guendolen, all in rage, departs into Cornwall, where Madan, the son she had by Locrine, was hitherto brought up by Corineus, his grandfather. And gathering an army of her father's friends and subjects, gives battle to her husband by the river Sture; wherein Locrine, shot with an arrow, ends his life. But not so ends the fury of Guendolen; for Estrildis, and her daughter Sabra, she throws into a river; and, to leave a monument of revenge, proclaims that the stream be thenceforth called after the damsel's name, which, by length of time, is changed now to Sabrina, or Severn."

In 'Comus' Milton lingers with delight about the same story :

"There is a gentle nymph not far from hence,

That with moist curb sways the smooth Severn stream,

Sabrina is her name, a virgin pure;

Whilome she was the daughter of Locrine,
That had the sceptre from his father Brute.
She, guiltless damsel, flying the mad pursuit
Of her enraged stepdame, Guendolen,

Commended her fair innocence to the flood,

That stay'd her flight with his cross-flowing course.'

"

The tragedy of 'Locrine' was originally printed in quarto, under the following title:"The lamentable Tragedie of Locrine, the eldest sonne of King Brutus, discoursing the warres of the Britaines and Hunnes, with their Discomfiture: The Britaines victorie, with their Accidents, and the death of Albanact. No less pleasant than profitable. Newly set foorth, ouerseene and corrected, by W. S. London, printed by Thomas Creede. 1595.' It was entered in the books of the Stationers' Company on the 20th of July, 1594. The play concludes with some homespun lines, which, to a certain extent, fix the date :"Lo! here the end of lawless treachery,

Of usurpation, and ambitious pride.

And they that for their private amours dare
Turmoil our land, and set their broils abroach,
Let them be warned by these premises.

And as a woman was the only cause

That civil discord was then stirred up,

So let us pray for that renowned maid

That eight-and-thirty years the sceptre sway'd,

In quiet peace and sweet felicity;

And every wight that seeks her grace's smart,

Would that this sword were pierced in his heart!"

The thirty-eighth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign began on the 17th of November, 1595; and it would therefore appear that these lines were written after the entry at Stationers' Hall; and that the piece, if acted at all, was presented in the latter part of the year of which the first edition bears the date. The question then arises, whether the expression in the title-page of that edition, "Newly set foorth, ouerseene and corrected, by W. S." implies that W. S. had corrected and published a play of an elder date; and that involves the further question whether W. S. was the original author, or one who undertook to repair a work that had fallen into his hands. Steevens says," Supposing for a moment that W. S. here stood for our great poet's name (which is extremely improbable), these words prove that Shakspere was not the writer of this performance. If it was only set forth, overseen, and corrected, it was not composed, by him." This is not

a very logical inference from the words of the title-page; nor is this an isolated case of
prominently setting forth the correction of a play. The following title-page is, we
think, an exact parallel to that of Locrine :'-'A pleasant Conceited Comedie called
Love's Labours Lost. As it was presented before her Highness this last Christmas.
Newly corrected and augmented by W. Shakespeare.' Here the corrector and aug-
menter is the undoubted author; and so the appearance of W. S. in the title-page of
'Locrine' as its overseer and corrector, does not prove that "it was not composed" by
W. S. We have no earlier trace that W. S. was held to be William Shakspere than the
publication of 'Locrine' in the folio of 1664. If the publishers of that edition of Shak-
spere's works were misled by the initials W. S., they are not the only persons who have
thought that these initials could only belong to the greatest of writers. Shakspere has
been made a political economist upon the strength of them. He was indeed a much
better political economist than many of the statesmen of his time; but he did not in
1581 write A compendious or briefe examination of certayne ordinary complaints, &c.,
by W. S.,' which in the last century was printed with his name. The author of that
very able pamphlet was William Stafford. The theory of Steevens with regard to
'Locrine' is that it was written by Marlowe, who died in 1593; that it was entered on the
Stationers' books as Marlowe left it; that some revision was necessary; and that it was
published with the initials of the reviser, William Smith, in 1595. In 1596 William
Smith printed a collection of fifty sonnets, entitled, Chloris, or the Complaint of the
passionate despised Shepheard.' In England's Helicon,' printed in 1600, there is a
little poem entitled 'Corin's Dream of his fair Chloris,' bearing the initials W. S.,
which is no doubt by the same William Smith. We extract the first eight lines of this
poem :-

"What time bright Titan in the zenith sat,

And equally the fixed poles did heat:

When to my flock my daily woes I chat,
And underneath a broad beech took my seat.
The dreaming god, which Morpheus poets call.
Augmenting fuel to my Ætna's fire,

With sleep possessing my weak senses all,

In apparitions makes my hopes aspire."

In the Censura Literaria' (vol. v., p. 113) an account is given of a work printed in
1577, entitled 'The Golden Aphroditis: a pleasant discourse penned by John Grange,
gentleman,' in which a poem is also found by W. S., which is thus described :—
"Eighteen commendatory lines succeed, by W. S. This probably was Wm. Smith,
the writer of other poesies. Shakspeare it could not be; both on account of the date,
and because he thus useth the commonplace process of compliment employed in that
age, in which mythology and personification are made to halt for it." We extract four
lines from these commendatory verses :-

"Here virtue seems to check at Vice, and Wisdom Folly taunts:
Here Venus she is set at nought, and dame Diane she vaunts.
Here Pallas Cupid doth detest, and all his carpet-knights;
Here doth she show that youthful imps in folly most delights."

Here then was a W. S. appearing as a poet in 1577, and again in 1596. Locrine, iu
1595, is newly set forth, &c., by W. S. The same anonymous person might have written
a play in the very early days of the English stage, contemporary with the first perform-
ances of Peele, Greene, Marlowe, and Kyd; he might have revised it and published it in
1595. Very little is known of this author; nothing of his personal history. A copy or
two is in existence of his fifty sonnets; and, if that be fame, his little book has been sold

for thirty pounds in our own day. Seventy years after the first publication of 'Locrine,' it is reprinted in a collection of Shakspere's works; but we have not a particle of evidence that it was traditionally ascribed to Shakspere. The principle which appears to have determined the publishers of our poet's works in 1664 to add to their "impression' a collection of "seven plays never before printed in folio" appears to have been a very simple one. They took all which they found bearing the initials W. S., or the name William Shakspere, as may be seen from the following table :

William Shakespeare .

W.S.

1. No name or initial .

2. William Shakespeare

1. No name or initial.
2. W. S.

William Shakespeare.
W. S.

A Yorkshire Tragedie

W. Shakespeare

The name of Shakspere affixed to the title of any of these plays cannot, as we have before observed in our notice of Pericles, be received as evidence of the authorship. 'Sir John Oldcastle,' of which two editions were published in 1600 by the same bookseller, the one with Shakspere's name, the other without (the one without a name being the most correct), was unquestionably not written by Shakspere, because we have record of a payment to the actual writers. This circumstance compelled us to inquire into the authorship of Pericles, almost wholly with reference to the internal evidence. And upon the same principle we must examine 'The London Prodigal' and 'The Yorkshire Tragedy.' It is manifest that the initials W. S. upon the title-pages of the carly copies cannot be received as evidence at all of the authorship, however convenient it might have been for a publisher to accept them as evidence fifty years after Shakspere's death. W. S. might, without any attempt to convey the notion that 'Locrine' was written by Shakspère, have fairly stood for William Smith; and in the same way the W. S. of Thomas Lord Cromwell,' and the W. S. of The Puritan' might have represented Wentworth Smith, a well-known dramatic author at the date of the publication of those plays, who wrote many pieces in conjunction with the best poets of that prolific period of the stage. We proceed to an analysis of 'Locrine,' not, as we would repeat, to attempt any display of ingenuity in finding parallels or contrasts, but, inquiring into the broad principles of Shakspere's art, to apply something like a test of the genuineness of those productions which have been assigned to him at various periods since they were written, some very loosely and hastily, as we think, and others upon grounds that demand a patient and careful examination.

According to Tieck, Locrine' is the earliest of Shakspere's dramas. He has a theory that it has altogether a political tendency: "It seems to have reference to the times when England was suffering through the parties formed in favour of Mary Stuart, and to have been written before her execution, while attacks were feared at home, and invasions from abroad." It was corrected by the author, and printed, he further says, in 1595, when another Spanish invasion was feared. We confess ourselves utterly at a loss to recognise in Locrine' the mode in which Shakspere usually awakens the love of country. The management in this particular is essentially different from that of King John and Henry V. 'Locrine' is one of the works which Tieck has translated,

and his translation is no doubt a proof of the sincerity of his opinions ;, yet he says, frankly enough, "It bears the marks of a young poet unacquainted with the stage, who endeavours to sustain himself constantly in a posture of elevation, who purposely neglects the necessary rising and sinking of tone and effect, and who with wonderful energy endeavours from beginning to end to make his personages speak in the same highly-wrought and poetical language, while at the same time he shakes out all his school-learning on every possible occasion." To reduce this very just account of the play to elementary criticism, Tieck says, first, that the action of the play is not conducted upon dramatic principles; second, that the language is not varied with the character and situation; third, that the poetry is essentially conventional, being the reflection of the author's school-learning. It must be evident to all our readers that these characteristics are the very reverse of Shakspere. Schlegel says of 'Locrine,' "The proofs of the genuineness of this piece are not altogether unambiguous; the grounds for doubt, on the other hand, are entitled to attention. However, this question is immediately connected with that respecting Titus Andronicus, and must be at the same time resolved in the affirmative or negative." We dissent entirely from this opinion. It appears to us that the differences are as strikingly marked between Locrine' and Titus Andronicus as between Titus Andronicus and Othello. Those productions were separated by at least twenty years. The youth might have produced Aaron; the perfect master of his art, Iago. There is the broad mark of originality in the characterization and language of Titus Andronicus. The terrible passions which are there developed by the action find their vent in the appropriate language of passion, the bold and sometimes rude outpourings of nature. The characters of 'Locrine' are moved to passion, but first and last they speak out of books. In Shakspere, high poetry is the most natural language of passion. It belongs to the state of excitement in which the character is placed; it harmonizes with the excited state of the reader or of the audience. But the whole imagery of 'Locrine' is mythological. In a speech of twenty lines we have Rhadamanthus, Hercules, Eurydice, Erebus, Pluto, Mors, Tantalus, Pelops, Tithonus, Minos, Jupiter, Mars, and Tisiphone. The mythological pedantry is carried to such an extent, that the play, though unquestionably written in sober sadness, is a perfect travesty of this peculiarity of the early dramatists. Conventional as Greene and Marlowe are in their imagery, a single act of 'Locrine' contains more of this tinsel than all their plays put together, prone as they are to this species of decoration. In the author of 'Locrine' it becomes so entirely ridiculous, that this quality alone would decide us to say that Marlowe had nothing to do with it, or Greene either. There is another peculiarity also in 'Locrine' which distinguishes it as much from Titus Andronicus as it does from the accredited works of the best dramatists of the early period. We allude to the incessant repetitions of a phrase, in the endeavour to be forcible and rhetorical. Sparingly used, all poets know the power of an echo which intensifies the original sound; but we will select a few such passages from Locrine' which are the mere platitudes of weakness and inexperience:

"These arms, my lords, these never-daunted arms."
"This heart, my lords, this ne'er-appalled heart."
"Accursed stars, damn'd and accursed stars."
"Brutus, that was a glory to us all,

Brutus, that was a terror to his foes."

"For at this time, yea at this present time."
"Casts such a heat, yea such a scorching heat."
"Since mighty kings are subject to mishap
(Ay, mighty kings are subject to mishap)."
"But this foul day, this foul accursed day."

No doubt we may find this rhetorical form amongst the founders of our drama, and often in an excess which approaches to the ridiculous; take a passage from Greene's 'Orlando Furioso' for example:

Although my country's love, dearer than pearl,
Or mines of gold, might well have kept me back;
The sweet conversing with my king and friends,
Left all for love, might well have kept me back;
The seas by Neptune hoised to the heavens,
Whose dangerous flaws might well have kept me back;
The savage Moors and Anthropophagi,

Whose lands I pass'd, might well have kept me back.
The doubt of entertainment in the event
When I arriv'd, might well have kept me back;
But so the fame of fair Angelica

Stamp'd in my thoughts the figure of her love,
As neither country, king, or seas, or cannibals,
Could by despairing keep Orlando back."

We have the same sort of elaborate repetition in 'Locrine:'

"If Fortune favour me in mine attempts,

Thou shalt be queen of lovely Albion.
Fortune shall favour me in mine attempts,
And make thee queen of lovely Albion."

The latter passage, as well as that of Greene, is evidently part of the system of rhetoric upon which both writers proceeded, although in Greene the management is more spirited. We know of nothing like examples of this system in Shakspere, except in one playful piece of comedy, where the principle is applied with the greatest nicety of art:

If you did know to whom I gave the ring,
If you did know for whom I gave the ring,
And would conceive for what I gave the ring,
And how unwillingly I left the ring,
When nought would be accepted but the ring,
You would abate the strength of your displeasure.
Por. If you had known the virtue of the ring,
Or half her worthiness that gave the ring,

Or your own honour to contain the ring,
You would not then have parted with the ring."
(Merchant of Venice, Act v.)

Let us, however, proceed to a rapid examination of 'Locrine,' in its action and characterization.

The dumb-show, as it is called, of 'Locrine' is tolerably decisive as to the date of the performance. It belongs essentially to that period when the respective powers of action and of words were imperfectly understood; when what was exhibited to the eye required to be explained, and what was conveyed to the imagination of the audience by speech was to be made more intelligible by a sign-painting pantomime. Nothing could be more characteristic of a very rude state of art, almost the rudest, than the dumb-shows which introduce each act of Locrine.' Act I. is thus heralded:

"Thunder and lightning. Enter Ate in black, with a burning torch in one hand, and a bloody sword in the other. Presently let there come forth a lion running after a bear; then come forth an archer, who must kill the lion in a dumb show, and then depart. Ate remains."