From the double danger which threatened English tragedy in the days of its infancy--that it would congeal on the wintry heights of classical themes, or dissolve its vigour in the glowing heat of a passion fiercer than that of the Italians--_Ingleso Italianato è un diavolo incarnato_--it was preserved more than by any other cause by its happy association with the traditions of the national history. An exceptional position might seem to be in this respect occupied by T. Hughes' interesting tragedy _The Misfortunes of Arthur_ (1587). But the author of this play--in certain portions of whose framework there were associated with him seven other members of Gray's Inn, including Francis Bacon, and which was presented before Queen Elizabeth like _Gorboduc_--in truth followed the example of the authors of that work both in choice of theme, in details of form, and in a general though far from servile imitation of the manner of Seneca; nor does he represent any very material advance upon the first English tragedy.
Fortunately, at the very time when from such beginnings as those just described the English tragic drama was to set forth upon a course in which it was to achieve so much, a new sphere of activity suggested itself. And in this, after a few more or less tentative efforts, English dramatists very speedily came to feel at home. In their direct dramatization of passages or portions of English history (in which the doings and sufferings of King Arthur could only by courtesy or poetic licence be included) classical models would be of scant service, while Italian examples of the treatment of national historical subjects, having to deal with material so wholly different, could not be followed with advantage. The native species of the _chronicle history_, which designedly assumed this name in order to make clear its origin and purpose, essayed nothing more or less than a dramatic version of an existing chronicle. Obviously, while the transition from half historical, half epical narrative often implied carrying over into the new form some of the features of the old, it was only when the subject matter had been remoulded and recast that a true dramatic action could result. But the _histories_ to be found among the plays of Shakespeare and one or two other Elizabethans are true dramas, and it would be inconvenient to include these in the transitional species of those known as _chronicle histories_. Among these ruder compositions, which intermixed the blank verse introduced on the Stage by _Gorboduc_ with prose, and freely combined or placed side by side tragic and comic ingredients, we have but few distinct examples. One of these is _The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth_, known to have been acted before 1588; in which both the verse and the prose are frequently of a very rude sort, while it is neither divided into acts or scenes nor, in general, constructed with any measure of dramatic skill. But its vigour and freshness are considerable, and in many passages we recognize familiar situations and favourite figures in later masterpieces of the English historical drama. The second is _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, in two parts (printed in 1591), an epical narrative transferred to the stage, neither a didactic effort like Bale's, nor a living drama like Shakespeare's, but a far from contemptible treatment of its historical theme. _The True Chronicle History of King Leir_ (acted in 1593) in form resembles the above, though it is not properly on a national subject (its story is taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth); but, with all its defects, it seems only to await the touch of the master's hand to become a tragedy of supreme effectiveness. A yet further step was taken in the _Tragedy of Sir Thomas More_ (c. 1590)--in which Shakespeare's hand has been thought traceable, and which deserves its designation of "tragedy" not so much on account of the relative nearness of the historical subject to the date of its dramatic treatment, as because of the tragic responsibility of character here already clearly worked out.