career.

He who wrote this description had, we think, looked upon the patriot trainbands of London in 1588. But, if we mistake not, he had given an impulse to the spirit which had called forth this "strong and mighty preparation,” in a voice as trumpet-tongued as the proclamations of Elizabeth. The chronology of Shakspere's King John is amongst the many doubtful points of his literary The authorship of the King John' in two Parts is equally doubtful. But if that be an older play than Shakspere's, and be not, as the Germans believe with some reason, written by Shakspere himself, the drama which we receive as his is a work peculiarly fitted for the year of the great Armada. The other play is full of matter that would have offended the votaries of the old religion. This, in a wise spirit of toleration, attacks no large classes of men -excites no prejudices against friars and nuns, but vindicates the independence of England against the interference of the papal authority, and earnestly exhorts her to be true to herself. This was the spirit in which even the undoubted adherents of the ancient forms of religion acted while England lay under the ban of Rome in 1588. The passages in Shakspere's King John appear to us to have even a more pregnant meaning, when they are connected with that stirring time:

"K. John. What earthly name to interrogatories Can task the free breath of a sacred king?

Thou canst not, cardinal, devise a name

So slight, unworthy, and ridiculous,

To charge me to an answer, as the pope.

Tell him this tale; and from the mouth of England

Add thus much more,-that no Italian priest

Shall tithe or toll in our dominions;

But as we under Heaven are supreme head,

So under Him, that great supremacy,
Where we do reign, we will alone uphold,

Without the assistance of a mortal hand :
So tell the pope; all reverence set apart

To him and his usurp'd authority.

K. Phil. Brother of England, you blaspheme in this.

K. John. Though you, and all the kings of Christendom,

Are led so grossly by this meddling priest,

Dreading the curse that money may buy out;
And, by the merit of vile gold, dross, dust,
Purchase corrupted pardon of a man,
Who, in that sale, sells pardon from himself;
Though you, and all the rest, so grossly led,

This juggling witchcraft with revenue cherish;

Yet I, alone, alone do me oppose

Against the pope, and count his friends my foes."

“K. John. The legate of the pope hath been with me,

And I have made a happy peace with him;

And he hath promised to dismiss the powers
Led by the dauphin.

"This England never did, nor never shall.
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror.
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes are come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them: Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself do rest but true."

The patriotism of Shakspere is less displayed in set speeches than in the whole life of his historical plays incident and character. Out of inferior writers might be collected more laudatory sentences flattering to national pride; but his words are bright and momentary as the spark which fires the mine. The feeling is in the audience, and he causes it to burst out in shouts or tears. He learnt the management of this power, we think, during the excitement of the great year of 1588.

The Armada is scattered. England's gallant sons have done their work; the winds, which a greater Power than that of sovereigns and councils holds in His hand, have been let loose. The praise is to Him. Again, a mighty procession is on the way to St. Paul's. Shakspere is surely amongst the gazers on that great day of thanksgiving. He has seen the banners taken from the Spanish ships hung out on the battlements of the cathedral and now, surrounded by all the nobles

:

and mighty men who have fought her battles, the Queen descends from her "chariot throne" to make her "hearty prayers on her bended knees." Leicester, the favourite to whose weak hand was nominally intrusted the command of the troops, has not lived to see this triumph. But Essex, the new favourite, would be there; and Hunsdon, the General for the Queen. There too would be Raleigh, and Hawkins, and Frobisher, and Drake, and Howard of Effingham—one

who forgot all distinctions of sect in the common danger of his country. Well might the young poet thus apostrophize this country!

"This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
'T'his other Eden, demi-paradise;
This fortress, built by Nature for herself,
Against infestion and the hand of war;
This happy breed of men, this little world;
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,

1

Against the envy of less happier lands;

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

But, glorious as was the contemplation of the attitude of England during the year of the Armada, the very energy that had called forth this noble display of patriotic spirit exhibited itself in domestic controversy when the pressure from without was removed. The poet might then, indeed, qualify his former admiration ::

"O England! model to thy inward greatness,

Like little body with a mighty heart,

What mightst thou do that honour would thee do,

Were all thy children kind and natural!"

The same season that witnessed the utter destruction of the armament of Spain saw London excited to the pitch of fury by polemical disputes. It was not now the quarrel between Protestant and Romanist, but between the National Church and Puritanism. The theatres, those new and powerful teachers, lent themselves to the controversy. In some of these their licence to entertain the people was abused by the introduction of matters connected with religion and politics; so that in 1589 Lord Burghley not only directed the Lord Mayor to inquire what companies of players had offended, but a commission was appointed for the same purpose. How Shakspere's company proceeded during this inquiry has been made out most clearly by the valuable document discovered at Bridgewater House by Mr. Collier, wherein they disclaim to have conducted themselves amiss. "These are to certify your right Honourable Lordships that her Majesty's poor players, Janies Burbage, Richard Burbage. John Laneham, Thomas Greene, Robert Wilson, John Taylor, Anth. Wade. son, Thomas Pope, George Peele, Augustine Phillipps, Nicholas Towley, William Shakespeare, William Kempe, William Johnson, Baptiste Goodale, and

Robert Armyn, being all of them sharers in the Blackfriars playhouse, have never given cause of displeasure, in that they have brought into their plays matters of state and religion, unfit to be handled by them or to be presented before lewd spectators neither hath any complaint in that kind ever been preferred against hem or any of them. Wherefore they trust most humbly in your Lordships' consideration of their former good behaviour, being at all times ready and willing to vield obedience to any command whatsoever your Lordships in your wisdom may think in such case meet," &c.

"Nov. 1589."

A

In this petition, Shakspere, a' sharer in the theatre, but with others below him. in the list, says, and they all say, that "they have never brought into their plays matters of state and religion." The public mind in 1589-90 was furiously agitated by "matters of state and religion." A controversy was going on which is now known as that of Martin Marprelate, in which the constitution and discipline of the Church were most furiously attacked in a succession of pamphlets; and they were defended with equal violence and scurrility. Izaak Walton says," There was not only one Martin Marprelate, but other venomous books daily printed and dispersed, books that were so absurd and scurrilous, that the graver divines disdained them an answer." Walton adds,"And yet these were grown into high esteem with the common people, till Tom Nash appeared against them all, who was a man of a sharp wit, and the master of a scoffing, satirical, merry pen." Connected with this controversy, there was subsequently a more personal one between Nash and Gabriel Harvey; but they were each engaged in the Marprelate dispute. John Lyly was the author of one of the most remarkable pamphlets produced on this occasion, called Pap with a Hatchet.' Harvey, it must be observed, was the intimate friend of Spenser; and in a pamphlet which he dates from Trinity Hall, November 5, 1589, he thus attacks the author of Pap with a Hatchet,' the more celebrated Euphuist, whom Sir Walter Scott's novel has made familiar to

us:

"I am threatened with a bable, and Martin menaced with a comedy—a fit motion for a jester and a player to try what may be done by employment of his faculty. Bables and comedies are parlous fellows to decipher and discourage men (that is the point) with their witty flouts and learned jerks, enough to lash any man out of countenance. Nay, if you shake the painted scabbard at me, I have done; and all you that tender the preservation of your good names were best to please Pap-Hatchet, and fee Euphues betimes, for fear lest he be moved, or some one of his apes hired, to make a play of you, and then is your credit quite undone for ever and ever. Such is the public reputation of their plays. He must needs be discouraged whom they decipher. Better anger an hundred other than two such that have the stage at commandment, and can furnish out vices and devils at their pleasure." *

We thus see that Harvey, the friend of Spenser, is threatened by one of those who have the stage at commandment" with having a play made of him.

"

• Pierce's 'Supererogation.' Reprinted in 'Archaica,' p. 137.