contemporaries of Shakespeare, or aware of their general merits; and that he accordingly mistakes a resemblance in style and manner for an equal degree of excellence.  Shakespeare differed from the other writers of his age not in the mode of treating his subjects, but in the grace and power which he displayed in them.  The reason assigned by a literary friend of Schlegel’s for supposing the Puritan; or, the widow of Watling street, to be Shakespeare’s, viz. that it is in the style of Ben Jonson, that is to say, in a style just the reverse of his own, is not very satisfactory to a plain English understanding.  LOCRINE, and the London prodigal, if they were Shakespeare’s at all, must have been among the sins of his youth.  Arden of FEVERSHAM contains several striking passages, but the passion which they express is rather that of a sanguine tem-perament than of a lofty imagination; and in this respect they approximate more nearly to the style of other writers of the time than to Shakespeare’s.  Titus Andronicus is certainly as unlike Shakespeare’s usual style as it is possible.  It is an accumulation of vulgar physical horrors, in which the power exercised by the poet bears no proportion to the repugnance excited by the subject.  The character of Aaron the Moor is the only thing which shows any originality of conception; and the scene in which he expresses his joy ’at the blackness and ugliness of his child begot in adultery’, the only one worthy of Shakespeare.  Even this is worthy of him only in the display of power, for it gives no pleasure.  Shakespeare managed these things differently.  Nor do we think it a sufficient answer to say that this was an embryo or crude production of the author.  In its kind it is full grown, and its features decided and overcharged.  It is not like a first imperfect essay, but shows a confirmed habit, a systematic preference of violent effect to everything else.  There are occasional detached images of great beauty and delicacy, but these were not beyond the powers of other writers then living.  The circumstance which inclines us to reject the external evidence in favour of this play being Shakespeare’s is, that the grammatical construction is constantly false and mixed up with vulgar abbreviations, a fault that never occurs in any of his genuine plays.  A similar defect, and the halting measure of the verse are the chief objections to Pericles of Tyre, if we except the far-fetched and complicated absurdity of the story.  The movement of the thoughts and passions has something in it not unlike Shakespeare, and several of the descriptions are either the original hints of passages which Shakespeare has engrafted on his other plays, or are imitations of them by some contemporary poet.  The most memorable idea in it is in Marina’s speech, where she compares the world to ’a lasting storm, hurrying her from her friends’.