English stage, with the results of a number of new investigations, and a treatise on the relations between Shakspeare and Ben Jonson. He also gives an appropriate selection of the explanatory and critical notes from the various other editions. These literary efforts of Malone's, which he carried on with enthusiasm, deservedly won the consideration of all those capable of judging, and would have met with more success had he kept himself free from a certain pleasure in doubting, contradicting, and finding fault with his predecessors, and if his criticisms had not presented that inward uncertainty and want of connection which induce opposition, and warn readers to be careful in the perusal of his writings. He is unfortunately wanting in depth and acuteness of conception, and still more in the fine appreciation for the beautiful, and in poetical feeling; hence he does not possess any appreciation for what is beautiful in Shakspeare's works. Nevertheless his assertion that Shakspeare is much superior not only to Jonson and Fletcher-whom the bad taste of the last age from the time of the Restoration to the end of the century had set above him-but to all the dramatic poets of antiquity'-clearly proves how much the judgment of critics on Shakspeare, as compared with classic writers, had turned in his favour since the days of Sam. Johnson.

Steevens, in his edition of 1793, invariably refers to the results of Malone's criticisms and investigations, sometimes opposing, sometimes agreeing with him. It is this edition of Steevens, together with that of Malone, which subsequent editors have always made the foundation of their works; the cheaper editions generally reprinted the text only of Steevens' edition, more or less corrected, and almost all the other editions issued between the years 1793-1840 contain only single instances of more or less important improvements and additions. Reed's reproduction of Steevens' and Johnson's edition (1813, 21 vols.) and Malone's edition by James Boswell (1821, 21 vols.), both of which are worked out upon the same philologico-critical principles, likewise give, with the utmost completeness, the whole collective mass of the critical, commentatory, literary, and historical apparatus which had even increased in extent since the days of Malone;

these are the two principal editions of the variorum series. Of the later editions deserving honourable mention we have, therefore, now only to allude to that of Alexander Chalmers, the author of Shakspeare's biography, the only complete one since Rowe's, and which has since been adopted or made use of by most subsequent editors. This edition appeared first in 1805, in 9 parts (re-issued in 1823), and gives evidence of thorough learning as well as of independent inquiry and fine critical judgment.

Of the commentators who, together with independent editors, contributed to criticism and literary history, there appeared by the side of Tyrwhitt-who has already been mentioned-Benjamin Heath (A Revisal of Shakspeare's Text,' etc.. 1765), Joseph Ritson ('Verbal Criticisms on the Text of Shakspeare,' 1783), John Monck Mason ('Comments of Steevens' Edition,' etc., 1785), E. H. Seymour (Remarks critical, conjectural, and explanatory upon the Plays of Shakspeare,' 1805); and, at a later period, A. Becket, Zach. Jackson, and others. Their essays are all more or less deserving of notice in regard to the text and the better appreciation of Shakspeare's works. The only really eminent commentator among these, however, was Francis Douce, whose work, entitled, 'Illustrations of Shakspeare and of Ancient Manners,' etc., appeared in 1809, and was republished in 1839. He is among commentators-as R. Grant White observes-' what Malone is among editors; save that his volumes exhibit a wider range of knowledge and a more delicate and sympathetic apprehension of the peculiar beauties of Shakspeare, than Malone possessed.'

The literary historical investigations of Steevens, Malone and their successors, soon became connected with efforts to save the remains of the early English stage from further decay. As early as 1744, the publisher, R. Dodsley -himself a dramatic poet, whose works were very highly esteemed by Pope-issued a collection of plays from the earlier dramatists of the seventeenth century which existed in single and rare prints, and were thus in danger of being lost. This work, which appeared under the title of A Select Collection of Old Plays,' etc. (12 vols. 1744), and which was originally undertaken solely for the author's

own pleasure, exhibited the defects of inexperienced criticism, and of that want of method which usually accompanies mere dilettanteism. In 1780, therefore, a new edition of it was made by J. Reed, in which he endeavoured to correct these faults. He cut out twelve of the plays, some because they had been specially reprinted in an edition of Massinger's works which appeared at that time, others because their claim to be preserved was but very small. In their place he admitted ten plays which were more intimately connected with Shakspeare's time, and were more entitled to preservation. (For similar reasons the editor of the latest edition of 1825 again exchanged four of the pieces for other four.) Reed also continued Dodsley's Sketch of the English Stage,' from the time of the Revolution (with which it closed) down to 1776, the year in which Garrick left the stage.

About the same time appeared Warton's History of English Poetry, from the close of the eleventh to the commencement of the eighteenth century' (3 vols. 4to., London, 1774-81), in which Shakspeare and dramatic poetry are treated somewhat like stepchildren, it is true, but which, owing to its sound learning, and an analysis of the principal works together with a number of specimens, was well suited to correct the judgment and clear up the nation's consciousness in regard to its literary treasures.- Connected with the above works are Malone's already-mentioned Historical Account of the English Stage, and Th. Percy's Essay on the Origin of the English Stage, particularly the historical Plays of Shakspeare' (1793), which completed and amended the series.

CHAPTER III.

SHAKSPEARE DURING THE LATTER YEARS OF THE 18TH AND THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY.

SOON after the appearance of Johnson's criticisms, the æsthetic method of viewing Shakspeare's plays took a different turn. William Richardson, in his Philosophical Analysis and Illustration of some of Shakspeare's Dramatic Characters' (1774), discussed the characters of Macbeth, Hamlet, Jacques, and Imogen, with acute and psychological understanding, but in a diffuse and moralising manner. This first attempt to bring into view Shakspeare's mode of characterisation by the fulness of the life, the unity, and the completeness, the ethical depth and the psychological consistency of his dramatic personages, met with so much success that it was soon followed by a great number of imitators. Nay, it may be said that Richardson founded an entirely new branch of Shakspearian literature, which struck such firm root in the taste of the English nation, that it soon grew into a mighty tree, which, up to the most recent times, has brought forth numerous blossoms and fruits, but unfortunately has been cultivated too onesidedly.

Richardson's 'Analysis' was followed in 1777 by M. Morgan's Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff,' and one year later by his 'Modern Characters from Shakspeare, alphabetically arranged;' which, during the year of its first appearance, was republished no less than three times. In 1784, Richardson himself issued a continuation of his first work, under the title of Essays on Shakspeare's Dramatic Characters of Richard III., King Lear, and Timon of Athens;' and in 1785 was published Th. Whately's 'Remarks on some of the Characters of Shakspeare' (2nd ed., 1808; 3rd, 1839), against which Kemble directed his 'Macbeth Reconsidered: an Essay,

intended as an answer to part of the Remarks,' etc. (1790). These essays on the characters in Shakspeare could not fail to open the eyes of many, and give them a clearer insight into the dramatic construction of the poet's plays. People could not but perceive that characters like Macbeth and Othello formed, to a certain extent, complete dramas in themselves; at any rate, they must have begun to suspect that the many-sided development of such characters involved the inner, spiritual unity of the whole, which of itself might outweigh the outer, the material unity of action, of place, and of time. At all events it must have become evident that the representation of a full, complete, and diversified life of a great energetic character, is an infinitely higher and nobler work of art than, as it were, to stretch out a single deed on the rack of five acts in a succession of fine speeches, in order, after wearisome preparations, deliberations, and senti, mental effusions, to have it, in the last act, accomplished by characters out of whom correctness had sucked all life and blood.

This knowledge was further supported by the general course of literary history. The French drama and the Italian opera-which was formed on the same principlescould satisfy only so-called connoisseurs who looked at them with the eyes of their theories, or the more highly cultured minds par excellence, whose sight was blinded by fashion. The people remained attached to the petites pièces, that is, to farces and to dramatic and musical 'entertainments.' However, this food contained as little nutriment as the French tragedy or the Italian opera feeling and imagination were sent away empty, or at least felt the desire for more sustaining nourishment. No wonder that Sam. Richardson's Pamela' (1740) was seized upon as in the very fever of hunger, and that his 'Clarissa' (1748) founded a new epoch in the domain of romance writing. The wide and enthusiastic reception met with by these romances was an unconscious reaction and protestation against the French taste, which up to that time had prevailed in this department of literature also; and this imitation of the French romances, with their long-winded descriptions of the love affairs of princes, had