The three last pieces are not only unquestionably Shakspeare's, but in my
opinion they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works.
Steevens at last admits, in some degree, that they, as well as the rest,
except _Lochrine_, are Shakspeare's, but he speaks of all of them
with great contempt, as worthless productions. His condemnatory sentence
is not, however, in the slightest degree convincing, nor is it supported
by much critical acumen. I should like to see how such a critic would, of
his own natural suggestion, have decided on Shakspeare's acknowledged
master-pieces, and how much he would have thought of praising in them, had
not the public opinion already imposed on him the duty of admiration.
_Thomas Lord Cromwell_ and _Sir John Oldcastle_ are biographical dramas,
and in this species they are models: the first, by its subject, attaches
itself to _Henry the Eighth_, and the second to _Henry the Fifth_. The
second part of _Sir John Oldcastle_ is wanting; I know not whether a copy
of the old edition has been discovered in England, or whether it is lost.
_The Yorkshire Tragedy_ is a tragedy in one act, a dramatised tale of
murder: the tragical effect is overpowering, and it is extremely important
to see how poetically Shakspeare could handle such a subject.
Still farther, there have been ascribed to him, 1st. _The Merry Devil of
Edmonton_, a comedy in one act, printed in Dodsley's Collection of Old
Plays. This has, certainly, some appearance in its favour. It contains a
merry landlord, who bears great similarity to the one in _The Merry Wives
of Windsor_. However, at all events, though a clever, it is but a hasty
sketch. 2nd. _The Arraignment of Paris_. 3rd. _The Birth of Merlin_. 4th.
_Edward the Third_. 5th. _The Fair Em_. (Emma). 6th. _Mucedorus_. 7th.
_Arden of Feversham_. I have never seen any of these, and cannot therefore
say anything respecting them. From the passages cited, I am led to
conjecture that the subject of _Mucedorus_ is the popular story of
Valentine and Orson: a beautiful subject which Lope de Vega has also taken
for a play. _Arden of Feversham_ is said to be a tragedy on the story of a
man from whom the poet descended by the mother's side. This circumstance,
if the quality of the piece be not too directly at variance with its
supposed authorship, would afford an additional probability in its favour.
For such motives were not without their influence on Shakspeare: thus he
treated with a manifest partiality, Henry VII., who had bestowed lands on
his forefathers for services performed by them.
Of Shakspeare's share in _The Two Noble Cousins_, it will be the time
to speak when I come to mention Fletcher's works.
It would be very instructive, if it could be proved that several earlier
attempts of works, afterwards re-written, proceeded from himself, and not
from an unknown author. We should thus be best enabled to trace his
development as an artist. Of the older _King John_, in two parts, (printed
by Steevens among six old plays,) this might probably be made out. That he
sometimes returned to an old piece is certain. With respect to _Hamlet_,
for instance, it is well known, that it was very gradually formed by him
to its present perfect state.
Whoever takes from Shakspeare a play early ascribed to him, and
confessedly belonging to his time, is certainly bound to answer, with some
degree of probability, this question: who then wrote it? Shakspeare's
competitors in the dramatic walk are pretty well known, and if those of
them who have even acquired a considerable reputation, a Lilly, a Marlow,
a Heywood, are still very far below him, we can hardly imagine that the
author of a work, which rises so high beyond theirs, could have remained
unknown.