cally to all these numerous allusions. We prefer quoting the remarks of an author entitled to consideration, who gives the modern reader a fair idea of the estimation in which the poet was held about 1598, when he was in his thirty-fifth year. If people will reflect upon the wide difference between the state of literature in the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries, and call to mind how few celebrated men in the present day, with all the facilites which they enjoy for the circulation of their productions, achieve distinction before completing their thirty-fifth year, they will have a better conception of the real character of Shakespeare's fame, and of the importance of the position which he had attained, when even quite a young man. It has long been the fashion among certain classes of critics to bolster up the false notion that Shakespeare, as an author, was comparatively unknown in his own day, and that his merits were only recognized after a tedious lapse of time. Nothing can be more directly at variance with the truth, as we learn from evidence that is above suspicion. In 1598, Francis Meres, a clergyman, educated at Cambridge, put forth a small critical work, bearing the following quaint title, "Palladis Tamia; Wit's Treasury, being the second Part of Wit's Commonwealth;" and in this book Shakespeare is honourably noticed. Our poet is not only mentioned several times by name, but always with high commendation. One instance will suffice to show this. Meres says: "As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras so the sweete wittie-soule of Ovid lives in *For the benefit of readers not versed in classical allusions, the following explanation from "Smith's Classical Dictionary" is appended :—“ Euphorbus, a son of Panthous, and brother of Hyperenor, who was one of the bravest among the Trojans. He was the first who wounded Patroclus, but was afterwards slain by Menelaus, who subsequently dedicated the shield of Euphorbus in the temple of Hera, near Mycenæ. It is a well-known story, that Pythagoras asserted that he had once been the Trojan Euphorbus; that from a mellifluous and honytongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends, &c. "As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy, witnes his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love labors lost, his Love labours wonne,† his Midsummers Night Dreame, and his Merchant of Venice for Tragedy his Richard the Second, Richard the Third, Henry the Fourth, King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet. : "As Epius Stolo‡ said, that the Muses would speake with Plautus tongue if they would speak Latin: so I say that the Muses would speak with Shakespeare's fine filed phrase, if they would speake English."§ Francis Meres, the poet's contemporary, states explicitly that William Shakespeare was the author both of the poems and of the plays. The critic even goes farther than this, and enumerates certain poems and plays that Shakespeare had written. The manner in which this is done, justifies the conclusion that Meres was perfectly well informed upon the subject. Shakespeare's Sonnets were not published until 1609, yet in 1598 he speaks of them confidently as "his sugred Sonnets among his private friends." Thus Shakespeare was recognized by his contemporaries as a poet, and elevated by them to the highest rank. A reputation of this kind is not easily achieved; Trojan he had become an Ionian; and from a warrior a philosopher." Pythagoras was the author of that system the principal feature of which is a belief in the transmigration of souls. * Comedy of Errors. +All's Well that Ends Well. The grammarian L. Ælius Stilo used to say, and Varro adopted his words, "that the Muses would use the language of Plautus if they were to speak Latin."-Smith's Classical Dictionary. S. Page 281. certainly very few men accomplish so much at an early age. How long this eulogium might have been written previous to publication, we have no means of judging; but we do know that in 1598 Shakespeare was publicly recognized as the author of— COMEDIES. The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Love's Labour's Lost. All's Well that Ends Well. The Midsummer Night's Dream. The Merchant of Venice. HISTORICAL TRAGEDIES. Richard II. Richard III. Henry IV. King John. Titus Andronicus. TRAGEDY. Romeo and Juliet. POEMS. Venus and Adonis. Lucrece. Sonnets. Fifteen such works at the age of thirty-five were indeed sufficient to constitute a glorious reputation, even had their author then relinquished his pen and abandoned the Muses for ever. Nor does Meres wish his readers to suppose that he had enumerated all the works which, at that early period in his career, our great dramatist had produced. The critic merely notices these fifteen as specimens of what Shakespeare had done; we possess positive evidence that others, not referred to in this list, were in existence at that time, and may form some conception of the manner in which he had laboured, and of the extraordinary reputation that he had achieved. Even the fame of his Sonnets, which were not published until eleven years later, had got abroad, and the way in which Meres speaks of them would of itself suffice to prove that all the productions of this master-mind were in his own day sought after and esteemed. We have pointed out the friendship that existed between the Earl of Southampton and Shakespeare, and the honourable mention made by this well-known peer of the manager, actor, and poet, to a third person; we have referred to the publication and the success of the poems, and adduced the testimony of a contemporary,— an impartial writer, by whom Shakespeare is recognized as the author of poems, sonnets, and dramas; and we imagine that few will feel inclined to cavil at the conclusions which we draw from these matters; namely, that it is utterly impossible that Bacon could have written the dramas, or that any person but William Shakespeare is to be regarded as their author. No writer enrolled in our literary annals can be more clearly entitled to the proud position he has gained, than this extraordinary man. Those who have studied these various productions of his superior and commanding mind, in that reverential manner in which everybody ought to approach the consideration of such masterpieces of human genius, will not experience the slightest difficulty in believing them to have emanated from one gifted being. By indisputable evidence, they are assigned to Shakespeare, and are indeed the credentials by which he has won the homage of successive generations. If Mr. William Henry Smith be indeed in search of the wonderful, we can direct his inquiring gaze to a marvel, upon which he seems to have G stumbled quite unawares. His reasoning faculties must be below the average, or he would long since have detected this, lying in his path, and almost inviting observation. The wonder would be, not that William Shakespeare should have produced several works, kindred in beauty and character, but, that, after having taken mankind captive by the magnitude of his powers, after having, at a comparatively early age, written poems of the highest order of merit, he should suddenly abandon the cultivation of this particular and glorious gift, and cease to ravish the world by the sweet strains of his melodious lyre. Now this is the marvel that Mr. William Henry Smith has raised up; and it is one inseparable from his theory. It would be harder to believe this, even had we very strong evidence in its support, than that in the "Venus and Adonis," and the "Lucrece," may be recognized the first soarings of that surpassing genius, which reached its fairest development in these beautiful creations of the human mind," Hamlet," "King Lear," "Macbeth," and "Othello." Attempts have been frequently made to depreciate the poems, and to under-rate their merits. The unprejudiced reader will admit that they display much of the same wonderful power that constitutes the excellence of the dramas. They are superior to other poems of the kind, just as the dramas excel all similar compositions. The criticism upon the subject, of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, is not only just, but profound: he felt what he wrote, and had, moreover, a genuine appreciation of Shakespeare. He says: "The subject of the 'Venus and Adonis' is unpleasing; but the poem itself is for that very reason the more illustrative of Shakspeare. There are men who can write passages of deepest pathos, and even sublimity, on circumstances personal to themselves and stimulative of their own passions; but they are not, therefore, on this account poets. Read that magnificent burst of woman's patriotism |