writer; at least Henshawe's diary mentions fourteen plays in which he had a share in the short space of seven years. But nearly all have perished, and the world is not likely to suffer by the loss. One of his plays, The Downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntingdon, part i., has been lately reprinted in a supplementary volume to Dodsley's collection. It has certainly merit; it has some force of language; and it describes rustic manners very well. Every thing, in fact, relating to so well known a personage as Robin Hood, the outlawed Earl of Huntingdon, is sure to be read with interest. Part the second of this drama was the joint composition of Munday and Chettle. R. Wilson, author of The Cobbler's Prophecy; T. Brandon, author of Virtuous Octavia; are scarcely deserving of mention. Their merit, as indeed that of the writers in the present paragraph, has been much overrated.

The preceding pages, in connection with the life of Heywood in the former volume, will enable the reader to understand the state of the English stage when Shakespear arose.

3. Life and Works of Shakespear.

The indifference of contemporaries, and even of the generations after his death, to the personal history of Shakespear, has often been matter of astonishment. Nobody, indeed, so much as cared for the knowledge. Sir William Dugdale, a native of Coventry, about twenty miles from Stratford-upon-Avon, who published the Antiquities of Warwickshire, thirty years only after the poet's death, and who might have seen a score of persons once familiar with him, did not trouble himself to make a single inquiry on the subject. Fuller was equally careless. Edward Phillips, author of Theatrum Poetarum, just condescends to mention such a man. Langbaine, and Blount, and Gildon copy their predecessors. Anthony à Wood, one of the most industrious

writers England ever produced, who was born only fourteen years after Shakespear's decease, and who lived within thirty-six miles of the place where so much information might have been obtained, has not a syllable about the dramatist, though he has found room for many other writers who never saw Oxford. Waltonold Isaak Walton-who had so much poetry in his nature, and whose pen was occupied with subjects so much inferior in interest, disregarded Shakespear. Dryden professed to admire him; but Dryden did not colYet even in the time lect a single particular of his life. of this poet, abundance of information might have been Braithwaite the obtained respecting the bard of Avon.

poet, a personal acquaintance of Shakespear, lived until 1673. Jasper Mayne, who celebrated his death in some verses, was alive in 1671. Lord Stanhope, who died in 1677, must have heard many particulars from his father, who had been at court during the period of Shakespear's glory. The duke of Newcastle, who was twenty-four years old on the poet's death, and who lived Sir Richard until 1676, must have known as many. Bishop of Bridge-town, near to Stratford (1581-1673), must have known the poet many years before 1616, the All these Dryden might have period of his death. consulted, had he cared either for Shakespear's memory, or for the history of the stage. Many others, who were born a few years after his death, might, as they lived in the same county, or in the same neighbourhood, have procured information enough. Such were sir Robert Atkyns, sir Richard Verney, and Frances Even Shakespear's family might countess of Dorset. have been consulted. Dryden was eighteen when the eldest daughter of Shakespear died; he was thirty-one when the younger, Judith Quincy, died; and he was above forty when lady Barnard, the grand-daughter of Shakespear, whom he had personally known, followed In short, there never was a person them to the tomb. of whom more might have been, of whom so little was, collected, until the attempt was vain.

Whence arose this indifference to the memory of Shakespear? That the public were not indifferent to that of other writers, is abundantly evident from our biographical collections during the seventeenth century. The reason is plain: Shakespear was not so much esteemed, even during his life, as we commonly suppose; and after his retirement from the stage he was all but forgotten. During a whole century, only four editions of his complete works and these small - were published; and there would only have been three, but for the destructive fire of London in 1666. In fifty years after his death, he was, by Dryden's account, becoming somewhat obsolete, and other dramatists were "generally preferred to him." As late as the commencement of the last century, lord Shaftesbury complains of his unpolished style and antiquated wit; and Gildon informs us that for this very reason he was refused admission into many poetical collections. After the Restoration, two of Beaumont and Fletcher's dramas were acted for one of his. In the prologue to one of Shirley's* we read:

"In our old plays, the humour, love, and passion,
Like doublet, hose, and cloak, are out of fashion;
That which the world called wit, in Shakespear's age,
Is laughed at, as improper for our stage."

And in a satire published about thirteen years
we are informed † —

afterwards

"At every shop, while Shakespear's lofty style
Neglected lies, to mice and worms a spoil;
Gilt on the back, just smoking from the press,
The apprentice shews you D'Urfey's Hudibras,

Crown's Mask, bound up with Settle's choicest labours,
And promises some new essay of Babor's."

This, it may be said, was satire; the author was condemning the taste of the age. Granted; but still the taste was there. Nor would it be difficult to find writers enough who sincerely believed in the inferiority