of Shakspere as to the tragedies of Sophocles; and as Shakspere is said to have a greater affinity in his genius to Sophocles, than to either of the other Greek dramatists, the question arises, is this similarity of style an accidental resemblance, or an imitation?

As we occasionally meet with critical remarks, such as, "there is something very Greekish in this,"—" we have here another instance of Shakspere's profound knowledge of poetic story,"-"the Greek dramatists,* whose practice Shakspere follows in many things, whether knowingly or unconsciously,"—and as Macbeth is said to have some analogy to the Electra of Sophocles and to the Trilogy of Æschylus, it follows as the more reasonable explanation, that Shakspere must have had a far more intimate knowledge of the Greek language, than the warmest supporters of his classical learning have given him credit for.

Mr. Armitage Brown jumped to the conclusion, that Hamlet was written before the autumn of 1589, and is supported therein by Mr. Knight; but there are plausible grounds for this opinion, not noticed by these gentlemen; Shakspere must have been forcibly struck by the extraordinary success of Tamburlaine and Faustus; and it seems as if the latter play gave rise to Hamlet; for who and what is he? Shakspere, meditating a new tragedy, and looking out for a suitable subject, fortunately looked in, and found what he wanted, a philosopher and a wit, Faustus and Mephistophiles in one. Happily his philosophy and wit are always on the side of religion and morality; though these tendencies are

* Hartley Coleridge, in a note to Massinger, p. xxxviii.

not so distinctly visible in the witty philosopher of France, nor in the author of the German Faust.

We may then easily imagine, how Hamlet arose in the poet's mind;—he selects the story from Saxo Grammaticus as the sketch or outline of the play; perceives its resemblance to the old Greek story of Orestes, but unluckily he has no god at his command, the doctors having rejected Apollo, and retained, as usual with mankind, the worst part only, the snake as their emblem; he meditates over his difficulties, "Ah there's the rub! about my brains! ha! ha! the ghost's the thing." So he pours into the witches' cauldron nine Greek tragedies, tumbles Faustus and Mephistophiles on the top of them, and then, like Curtius for his country's good, plunges over head and ears into the cauldron himself, and reappears as-Hamlet the Dane.

But he borrows not nature from these classical divinities; he returns to nature and himself, to Pericles; for is not Pericles Hamlet? at least, "a piece of him":— "If thou livest, Pericles, thou hast a heart That even cracks for woe."

As both Potter and Francklin, in their translations, adopt the very phrases used in Hamlet, it is curious if they never suspected Shakspere may have read these tragedies; it shows very clearly, how injurious, how benumbing to the mind, are prejudices and preconceived opinions.

It may be reasonably inferred from the words of Marcellus :

"And why such daily cast of brazen cannon,
And foreign mart for implements of war:

Why such impress of shipwrights,"

that Hamlet was composed during the summer of 1588, and was brought out in the winter season some weeks before Christmas. I have previously shown that Shakspere must have gone to London in 1585, taking up to town with him Pericles, a modest, amiable young man; the success of this play encouraged him, gave him more swing and confidence, so that he speaks out more freely and boldly, and manifests himself more openly in Valentine. We may may then suppose he brought out Pericles in 1585, Valentine in the spring of 1586, and Titus Andronicus the following Christmas; and in the spring of 1587, as I shall hereafter show, All's Well that Ends Well. About the same period Marlowe produced Tamburlaine, say, both parts in 1586; Faustus is considered to have appeared in 1588, and probably as early as December, '87; Shakspere, constantly studying the principles of his art, and struck with the great popularity of Tamburlaine, brings forth, not as a vulgar imitator, but as a young artist, Dido and Eneas at Christmas, 1587. We may imagine what must have been his feelings; how galled and wounded, how disgusted with himself and with the world! He, conscious of his own superiority as a poet, finds himself a successful comic writer, but has failed in his highest ambition, in tragedy; whilst Marlowe has written three tragedies, each a popular favourite, and the last far superior to the two parts of Tamburlaine. There can be little doubt Marlowe at this moment was in the public opinion [though

certainly not by the judicious few] regarded as the greater genius of the two.

Hamlet, however, was more than successful; it created a tremendous sensation, and took London by storm. Then Shakspere, flushed with his triumph, poured forth the rejoicings of his soul in Love's Labour's Lost; no longer did "this brave o'er-hanging-this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, appear no other thing to him than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours; all nature laughed around him; he had vanquished his enemies, and, hurling the giants down, he seated himself on the dramatic throne, as on a rock environed by the sea, smiling at the multitudinous waves of barbarism roaring around him; and Biron was the expression of his exultant feelings.

Hamlet and Biron must, then, be regarded as the same person; "the clouds hang on "" the one, and the other is "too much i' the sun;" "the gibing spirit" is strong in Hamlet, and had the joyous-hearted and chivalrous Biron seen the ghost of a murdered father, and his mother been guilty of an incestuous marriage, he too, "the wit, poet, and philosopher," would have been as melancholy, contemplative, and decisive, as Hamlet; like him, he soliloquizes, and is the main character, the master-spirit in the play; it is the same man under different circumstances:

'The courtier's, scholar's, soldier's eye, tongue, sword:

The expectancy and rose of the fair state,

The glass of fashion, and the mould of form,

The observ'd of all observers!"

Is not that the character of Biron, and was it not the

character of Hamlet previous to his father's death? Had Goethe known the connecting link between these two plays, he would have saved himself the trouble of speculating about Hamlet's natural character. There cannot be the slightest doubt, the lecture of Rosaline is an honest confession of one of Shakspere's own failings, too fond of jesting, a fault which he felt quite unqualified him for success in the medical trade, and so, like a sensible man, he cut it, that is, the trade.

In the supplementary notice to the Two Gentlemen of Verona, Pictorial Shakspere, we read: "In the first scene he (Valentine) laughs at the passion of Proteus, as if he knew that it was alien to his nature; but when he has become enamoured himself, with what enthusiasm he proclaims his devotion:

ઃઃ

Why man she is mine own;
And I as rich in having such a jewel

As twenty seas, if all their sand were pearl."

"In this passionate admiration we have the germ of Romeo, and so also in the scene where Valentine is banished:

And why not death, rather than living torment.'

"We are not wandering from our purpose of contrasting Proteus and Valentine, by showing that the character of Valentine is compounded of some of the elements that we find in Romeo.”

But Biron is also a similar character, compounded of the same elements; with what enthusiasm he proclaims his devotion:—

"Who sees the heavenly Rosaline, That, like a rude and savage man of Inde,