then Shakspere, rousing himself to a deeper inquest into things, may have passed on to his great series of tragedies.

"Let us call this, then, the comedy of disillusion; and certainly, wherever we place it, we must notice a striking resemblance in its spirit and structure to Timon of Athens. Timon has a lax benevolence and shallow trust in the goodness of men; he is undeceived, and bitterly turns away from the whole human race in a rage of disappointment. In the same play Alcibiades is, in like manner, wronged by the world; but he takes his injuries firmly, like a man of action and experience, and sets about the subduing of his base antagonists. Apemantus, again, is the dog-like reviler of men, knowing their baseness, and base himself. Here, Troilus, the noble green-goose, goes through his youthful agony of ascertaining the unworthiness of her to whom he had given his faith and hope; but he is made of a stronger and more energetic fibre than Timon, and he comes out of his trial a man, no longer a boy, somewhat harder perhaps than before, but strung up for sustained and determined action. He is completely delivered from Cressida and from Pandar, and by Hector's death supplied with a motive for the utmost exertion of his heroic powers. Ulysses, the antithesis of Troilus, is the much-experienced man of the world, possessed of its highest and broadest wisdom, which yet always remains worldly wisdom, and never rises into the spiritual contemplation of a Prospero. He sees all the unworthiness of human life, but will use it for high worldly ends; the spirit of irreverence and insubordination in the camp he would restrain by the politic machinery of what he calls 'degree'-I. iii. 75–136. Cressida he reads at a glance, seeing to the bottom of her sensual shallow nature; and he assists at the disillusioning of the young Prince, whose nobleness is apparent to him from the first. Thersites also sees through the illusions of the world, but his very incapacity to have ever been deceived is a sign of the ignoble nature of the wretch. He feeds and grows strong upon garbage; physical nastinesses and moral sores are the luxuries of his imagination. The other characters-the brute warrior, Ajax; the insolent self-worshipper, Achilles; Hector, heroic, but too careless how and when he expends his heroic strength-are of minor importance. As the blindness of youthful love is shown in Troilus, so old age in its least venerable form, given up to a gratification of sensuality by proxy, is exposed to derision in Pandar. The materials for Troilus and Cressida were found by Shakspere in Chaucer's Troilus and Cressida; Caxton's translation from the French, Recuyles, or Destruction of Troy; perhaps, also, Lydgate's Troye Boke. Thersites he probably found in Book II. of Chapman's Homer. Shakspere's conception of Cressida and of Pandar differs widely from Chaucer's; in

Shakspere's hands, in accordance with the general design of the drama, Cressida and her uncle grow base and contemptible. Some critics have supposed that the love-story was written at a much earlier date than the part which treats of Ulysses; but we have seen that the contrasted characters of Troilus and Ulysses are both essential parts of the conception of the drama, and were created as counterparts."

The following table presents the plays in a series of groups which succeed one another in chronological order. The position of three or four plays of secondary importance may be doubtful; and I claim no certainty for the order of the plays within the groups; but I offer the arrangement of groups with great confidence as to its general correctness. It will be observed that in some cases one group overlaps in point of time that which follows it. To keep the comedies together, I have placed "Middle Tragedy" after the third division of what I have named "Later Comedy;" it will suffice if the reader bear in mind that, as a fact, the comedy overlaps the succeeding group of tragedies.

The student will observe in this arrangement early, middle, and later Comedy; early, middle, and later History; and early, middle, and later Tragedy. Not only is it well to view the entire body of Shakspere's plays in the order of their chronological succession, but also to trace in chronological order the three separate lines of Comedy, History, and Tragedy. The group named Romances connect themselves, of course, with the Comedies; but there is a grave element in them which is connected with the Tragedies which preceded them. It has been noticed that the Romances have in common the incidents of reunions, reconciliations, and the recovery of lost children. Shakspere, though so remarkable for his

power of creating character, is not distinguished among dramatists for his power of inventing incident. Having found a situation which interested his imagination or was successful on the stage, he introduced it again and again, with variations. Thus, in the Early Comedies, mistakes of identity, disguises, errors, and bewilderments, in various forms, recur as a source of merriment and material for adventure. In the Later Comedies, again, it is quite remarkable how Shakspere (generally in the portions of these plays which are due to his own invention) repeats, with variations, the incident of a trick or fraud practised upon one who is a self-lover, and its consequences, grave or gay. Thus Falstaff is fatuous enough to believe that two English matrons are dying of love for him, and is made the victim of their merry tricks. Malvolio is made an ass of by the mischievous Maria taking advantage of his solemn self-esteem; Beatrice and Benedick are cunningly entrapped, through their good-natured vanity, into love for which they had been already predisposed; the boastful Parolles is deceived, flouted, and disgraced by his fellow-soldiers; and (Shakspere's mood growing earnest, and his thoughts being set upon deep questions of character) Angelo, the selfdeceiver, by the craft of the Duke, is discovered painfully to the eyes of others and to his own heart.

For the index, which adds to the usefulness of the present edition, I have to thank my friend Mr. Arthur E. Love, of Trinity College, Dublin.

It has been a happiness to me to find that what I have written on Shakspere has been approved by distinguished Shakspere scholars in England, in Germany, in France, and in America. I do not thank my critics for their

generous recognition of whatever may deserve commendation in my work; I may, however, at least express the sense of encouragement derived from what they have said. One of the earliest voices which spoke a word of emphatic approval of this book is now silent in death, and I cannot but desire to associate, at least by my grateful recollection, this Study of Shakspere with the honored name of its reviewer in The Academy, the late Mr. Richard Simpson.