The Sun.
London, England, 1818-02-21 00:00:00

LITERARY REVIEW.

SHAKSPEARE AND HIS TIMES: including the Biogra-
phy of that Poet ; Criticisms. on his Genius; a New,Chro-
nolegy of his Plays; a Disquisition on• the Object of his
Sonnets ; and a History of the Manners, Customs, &c. &c.
of Isis Age. By NATHAN DRAKE, M. D. Author of " Li-
teral y Hout s," and of f‘ Essays on Periodical Literature."
Two Vols. 4to. 1817. CADELL and DA'sriEs.

The publication of this work will form an epochs
in the Shakspearean History of this Country. So
abundant is the light thrown by it upon the sin-
gulatly interesting period- in which the Poet
lived, that not only every admirer of his writ;ngs,
but every person who is curious on the subjects
of our literatute, manners, customs, and their
i story, must occasionally resort to it for infor-
mation. Respecting the Poet himself, the least
is acquired ; but for this reason only, because
little was attaioable. Ail that could be done 'by
exatniniog and comparing the materials already
known, by research in the writings of AK"-
/WE ARE and his Contemporaries, Dr. DRAKE has,
with unwearied assiduity, and much sagacity, ef-
fected. But of little, much cannot fairly be
made; and where no notices remain, the Bio-
grapher cannot be blamed for scantiness of infor-
mation. But for the works of the Poet, that
most immortal part of bins, our Author has done
more than all.his Commenta,tors together. He
has pointed out the beauties of his earliest poems,
with a critical judgment, against which no fair
appeal can he made. He has ascertained, the ob-
ject of his Sonnets (hitherto a mystery), and re•
pelled unmerited censure, in the most manly and
effectual way, by pointing out their real beauties.
He has laboured the chronological view of Os
Dramas with more attention and exactness than
any precediot,, Author, and has pronounced the
most reasonable judgment upon the claints of the
Plays which have been doubtfully ascribed to
SHAKSPEARE. He has extended his views to the
Authors wino were contemporary as general l'octs,

or nlio might be esteemed to have prepared the
way for him iu the Drama. lo a word, he has
left nothing undone which- a judicious admirer of
our great Bard could have wished him to under-
take; and has performed nitteli which no one
would haVe thought It reasonable to require.

Such being our settled opinion, on the most
mature consideration .6t, Dr, DRAKE'S present
work, it will nut 'e thoUght extraordinalq that
eve should be desirous still further to extend our
observations Upon it ; or even to continue theth to
an article beyond the present. IVorks of such ela-
borate a:I successful research, united with so much
sound and original criticism, ale of very rare oc-
currence ; and therefore, if, which we do not ex-
pect, we should by any persons be thought CO
exceed our proper hounds, it is a fault. which we
are not likely eery often to repeat.
We cannot proceed further in our analysis of
this work without noticing the most clear and
just vindication of StiAnsPEARE against the charge
of plagiarism, from a writer in all respects his in-
ferior. The charge was made by a most blunder-
ing, though well-intentioned writer in the Monthly
Magazine, (most unpropitious vehicle !) who at
once accusing, and attempting to defend, the
bleat Poet, both on false grounds, has heaped
mistake upon mistake, in a way which can hard-
ly•be, conceived, without seeing the statements of
Dr. DRAKE. The sum of the accusation is, that
SUAKSPEARE'S printer, JAGGARD, printed aS his,
and with his permission, two Epistles which were
written by Thomas Heywood ; and certainly had
been printed long before in Heywood's book, en-
titled Britain'S Troy. The brief, but irrefragahle
refutation of the charge is, that Heywood himself,
when complaining of time printer, explicitly ac-
quits SHAKSPEAR.E of all concern in it. This ap-
pears in Heywood's Address to a bookseller (N.
OxEs), prefixed to his " Apology for Actors," in
which are these remarkable words

" Here likewise, I must necessarily insert a
manifest injury done me in that wo:ke, by taking
the two Epistles of Paris to- Htlen, and Helen to
Paris, and printing them in a lesse vultime, under
the name of another (Shakspeare); which may put
the world in opinion I might steale them from him;
and hee, to do himzelfe right, lump since publist;ed
them in his ovine name: hunt, as I t»ust acknow-
ledge my lines not wor•,th his patronage, under
~Thor'.} lie I►ath published them, so the author
(Shakspeare) I know "(was) much offended with Mr.
Jaggard (the printer), that (altogether unienowne
to him) presumed to make so bold with his name,"
&c. &c. "THOMAS HEYWOOD."

All this very ctirions matter, both of accusation
and defence, wil; be found in detail, in Dr. D.'s
second Volume, bet wets, pp. 44 and 49.
Having ably handled the whole sobject of his
author's minor poems, Dr. DRAKE proceeds, in
chapter VI. and VII., to give such a view of the
dress, ,planners, and costorns of the inhabitants of
Londoo, iu SHAI-LSPt~:t.tta's time, as he bad given
in Part 1. chap. 5-9, of those of his rural con-
temporaries ; that is to say, an ample and masterly
one., Chapter VIII. contains a brief, but very
satisfactory, view of the rise of dramatic poetry
in En gland, and of the authors in that line who
preceded SHAKSPEARE. The ailthor3 SO tnOille-
!-.t,,,t ate only 20 in monber, and are placed in
chronological order. Tim Tnwpas
Sackvillo ; 2. Richard Edwards ; 3. John St tt ,
4. Geo. Gascoigne ; 5. Lewis Wager ; G. Robert
lVilmot ; 7. Thomas Garter ; 8. Thionas Preston ;
9. Geo. %Vapid ; 10. Thomas L,lpturi ; 11. Gco.
Whetstone ; 12. Nathaniel ',food ; 13. Geo.
Peele ; 1.1. John Lilly ; 15. Thos: litighea ; 16.
Thomas Kyd ; 17. Christopher Marlowe ; IS.
Thomas Lodge ; 19. Robert Greene ; 20. Thomas
Legge. Of these writers, though some are ac-
knowledged to have pos,essed, and occasionally
displayed, in their dramas, considerable poetic
'powers, it is clearly shown, that no one Cali be
supposed to liaye offered any advantageous Model
or example far the genius of SnaKsrEartß. Cer-
tain anonymous plays which appeared in the same
interval are also enumerated. Extracts from the
characters given, of these poets, and their dramas,
might here be inserted with great advantage to
the reader and the author ; but, as we are o`diged,
from the nature of our publication, to study com-
pression rather than copiousness, we must content
ourselves with only referring to them, as judicious
and able pieces of criticism.
We now come, in chapter IX., to the impor-
tant period of our Bard's commencing, dramatic
Poet, which, by arguments of great tome and pro-
bability, Dr. DRAKE has assigned to the year 1590.
The chronological list of his plays, as arranged by
this critic, stands .thus-1. Pericles, 1590, (the
arguments for which, being justly- attributed to
SnaxsrEaßE, we will notice hereafter) ; 2. Co-
medy of Errors; and 3. Love's Labour Lost,
1591 ; 4. Henry VI. Part I. and 5. Part 11. the
second and third of the common editions, 1592,
(excluding entirely that which has been called
usually Part I.) ; 6. Midsummer Night's Dream,
and 7. Romeo and Juliet, 1593 ; 8. Taming of
the Shrew, 1594 ; 9. Two Gentlemen o( Verona,
and 10. King Richard 111. 1595 ; 11. Richard
11. ; 12. Henry IV. Part I. and 13. Ilenry IV.
Part 2. 1596 ; 14. The Merchant of Venice, and
15. Hamlet, 1597 ; 16. King John, and 17. All's
Well thit ends well, 1598 ; 18. Henry V. and
19. Much Ado About Nothing, 1599 ; 20. 'As
You Like It, 1600 ; 21. Merry Wives of+ Wind-
Sor, and 22. 'Troilus and Cressida, 1601 ; 23.
Henry VIII. and 24. Tinton of Athens, 1602.;
25. Measure for Measure, 1603 ; 26. King Lear,
1604 ; 27. Cymbeline, 1605 ; 28. Macbeth, 1606 ;
29. Julius Caesar, 1607 ; 30. Antony and Cleopa-
tra, 1608; 31. Coriolanus, 1609 ; 32. The Win-
ters Tale, 1610 ; 33. The Tempest. 1611 ; 34.
Othello, 1612 ; 33. Twelfth Night, 1613.
• It will be observed, that in this list Titus An-
dronicus, and all the additional pieces which are
contained in the fourth folio, and reprinted in Mr.
MaLoNe'S Supplement, viz. Sir John Oldcastle,
&c. are omitted, for which the author assigns his
r.:asons at large in the proper place. The obser-
vations occurring in support' of this arrangement,
and in further illitstratiott of the plays, might afford
a most abundant harvest of citations ; all these,
however, with whatever else the work may appear
to require, we purpose to •comprise in another
article of criticism.-(To be continued.)

*** As THE PRESS is unceasingly prolific, it is
our intention to endeavour to keep race with

We received last night the Paris Papers of Tues-
day last, and this morning those of Wednesday.
They continue the same silence respecting the re-
cent Attack upon the Duke of WELLINGTON', nor
do they mention a syllable of the success of any
efforts made to discover the assassin. Regarding
the nun►erous arrests stated in a Brussels Paper to
have been made at Paris, of persons suspected of
being -:oncerned in the crime of the attempt, not
a word is said in these Journals. The following
are Extracts : •