models for which he eventually substituted his own splendid examples of dramatic excellence. - KNIGHT, CHARLES, 1849, Studies of Shaks pere, bk. ii, ch. ii, p. 53. The work as it has come down to us is not in reality a drama at all, but an incompletely dramatised epic poem. Thus the germs of all his latest works lie in this unjustly neglected and despised play, which has suffered under a double disadvantage: it is not entirely Shakespeare's work, and in such portions of it as are his own there exist, in the dark shadow cast by her hideous surroundings about Marina, traces of that gloomy mood from which he was but just emerging. But for all that, whether we look upon it as a contribution to Shakespeare's biography or as a poem, this beautiful and remarkable fragment, "Pericles," is a work of the greatest interest.-BRANDES, George, 1898, William Shakespeare, A Critical Study, vol. II, pp. 279, 295. Great part of it must be Shakespeare's; there is perhaps no part that might not be; and the general characteristics of story-management and versification are a very odd mixture of his earliest and his latest manner a "Love's Labour's Lost" blended with a "Winter's Tale." -SAINTSBURY, GEORGE, 1898, A Short History of English Literature, p. 327. TWO NOBLE KINSMEN 1609 THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN: | Presented at the Blackfriars by the Kings Maiesties servants, with great applause: time; { Written by the memorable Worthies of their Gent. Printed at London by Tho. Cotes, for Iohn Waterson: | and are to be sold at the signe of the Crowne | in Pauls Church-yard. 1634. TITLE PAGE OF FIRST EDITION, 1634. This play is said to have been written by Shakespear and Fletcher, a circumstance which the editor of Beaumont and Fletcher seems to be greatly concerned about, probably out of tenderness for the reputation of Fletcher, but he need not have made himself in the smallest degree uneasy, for the play itself sufficiently proves that Shakespear had no hand in it. Indeed there is not much reputation to be claimed by any body, for the story is Chaucer's "Knights Tale," which we have seen already treated by Edwards to the great delight of queen Elizabeth. There is something, however, gaudy and fine in it; and, like most of the works of Beaumont and Fletcher, it resembles a parterre appearing so full of colours that form and symmetry are not once thought of. DIBDIN, CHARLES, 1795, A Complete History of the Stage, vol. III, p. 209. I have no doubt whatever that the first act and the first scene of the second act of "The Two Noble Kinsmen" are Shakspere's. COLERIDGE, SAMUEL TAYLOR, 1833, Table-Talk, Feb. 17. Be the authorship whose it may, "The Two Noble Kinsmen" is undoubtedly one of the finest dramas in the volumes before us. It contains passages which, in dramatic vigour and passion, yield hardly to anything 1 Dyce's "Beaumont and Fletcher." perhaps to nothing in the whole collection; while for gorgeousness of imagery, for delicacy of poetic feeling, and for grace, animation, and strength of language, we doubt whether there exists, under the names of our authors, any drama that comes near to it. SPALDING, WILLIAM, 1847, Dyce's Beaumont and Fletcher, Edinburgh Review, vol. 86, p. 58. For our own part, we wish that the question were as simple as in the case of "Henry VIII.," but we do not find it so. We were at first ready to agree with Spalding and Hickson Iwith the latter rather than the former on the points as to which they differ - but on more careful study of the play, we find ourself wavering, as Spalding did, and coming to regard the problem as "really insoluble." Shakespeare perhaps had a share in the play; but, if so, it is impossible to decide just what it was, or how it came about. — ROLFE, WILLIAM J., 1883, ed. The Two Noble Kinsmen, Introduction, p. 21. The play is of no particular value; it is far inferior to Fletcher's best work, and not to be compared with any of Shakespeare's completed dramas. Nevertheless, many eminent critics of this century have found distinct traces in this play of the styles of both greater and lesser poet. -BRANDES, GEORGE, 1898, William Shakespeare, A Critical Study, vol. II, p. 310. THE TEMPEST 1610 If there bee never a Servant-monster i' the Fayre, who can helpe it? he sayes; nor a nest of Antiques? Hee is loth to make Nature afraid in his Playes, like those that beget Tales, Tempests, and such like Drolleries, to mixe his head with other mens heeles. – JONSON, BEN, 1614, Bartholomew Fayre, Induction. November 7. - At noon resolved with Sir W. Pen to go see "The Tempest," an old play of Shakespeare's, acted, I hear, the first day. . . . The house mighty full; the King and Court there: and the most innocent play that ever I saw; and a curious piece of musique in an echo of half sentences, the echo repeating the former half, while the man goes on to the latter; which is mighty pretty. The play [has] no great wit, but yet good, above ordinary plays. PEPYS, SAMUEL, 1667, Diary and Correspondence. No man ever drew so many characters, or generally distinguished 'em better from one another, excepting only Johnson: I will instance but in one, to show the copiousness of his invention; 'tis that of "Calyban," or the monster in "The Tempest." He seems there to have created a person which was not in Nature, a boldness which at first sight would appear intolerable; for he makes him a species of himself, begotten by an "Incubus" on a Witch; but this, as I have elsewhere prov'd, is not wholly beyond the bounds of credibility, at least the vulgar stile believe it. We have the separated notions of a spirit and of a witch; (and spirits, according to "Plato," are vested with a subtil body; according to some of his followers, have different sexes) therefore as from the distinct apprehensions of a horse, and of a man, Imagination has form'd a "Centaur," so from those of an "Incubus" and a "Sorceress," Shakespear has produc'd his Monster. Whether or no his generation can be defended, I leave to Philosophy; but of this I am certain, the Poet has most judiciously furnish'd him with a person, a language, and a character which will suit him both by Father's and Mother's side: he has all the discontents and malice of a Witch, and of a Devil; besides a convenient proportion of the deadly sins; Gluttony, Sloth, and Lust, are manifest; the dejectedness of a slave is likewise given him, and the ignorance of one bred up in a Desart Island. His person is monstrous, as he is the product of unnatural lust; and his language is as hobgoblin as his person; in all things he is distinguished from other mortals. DRYDEN, JOHN, 1679, Troilus and Cressida, Preface. This drama is one of the noblest efforts of that sublime and amazing imagination, peculiar to Shakspeare, which soars above the bounds of nature, without forsaking sense; or, more properly, carries nature along with him beyond her established limits. WARBURTON, WILLIAM, 1747, Shakspear Plays, with Comment and Notes. An Attempte To Rescue that Aunciente, English Poet, And Play-Wrighte, Maister Williaume Shakespere, from the Maney Errours, faulsely charged on him, by Certaine New-fangled Wittes; And To let him Speak for Himself, as right well he wotteth, when Freede from the |