If it be true, as we are told on high authority, that the greatest glory of England is her literature and the greatest glory of English literature is its poetry, it is not less true that the greatest glory of English poetry lies rather in its dramatic than its epic or its lyric triumphs.  The name of Shakespeare is above the names even of Milton and Coleridge and Shelley:  and the names of his comrades in art and their immediate successors are above all but the highest names in any other province of our song.  There is such an overflowing life, such a superb exuberance of abounding and exulting strength, in the dramatic poetry of the half-century extending from 1590 to 1640, that all other epochs of English literature seem as it were but half awake and half alive by comparison with this generation of giants and of gods.  There is more sap in this than in any other branch of the national bay-tree:  it has an energy in fertility which reminds us rather of the forest than the garden or the park.  It is true that the weeds and briers of the underwood are but too likely to embarrass and offend the feet of the rangers and the gardeners who trim the level flower-plots or preserve the domestic game of enclosed and ordered lowlands in the tamer demesnes of literature.  The sun is strong and the wind sharp in the climate which reared the fellows and the followers of Shakespeare.  The extreme inequality and roughness of the ground must also be taken into account when we are disposed, as I for one have often been disposed, to wonder beyond measure at the apathetic ignorance of average students in regard of the abundant treasure to be gathered from this wildest and most fruitful province in the poetic empire of England.  And yet, since Charles Lamb threw open its gates to all comers in the ninth year of the nineteenth century, it cannot but seem strange that comparatively so few should have availed themselves of the entry to so rich and royal an estate.  The subsequent labors of Mr. Dyce made the rough ways plain and the devious paths straight for all serious and worthy students.  And now again Mr. Bullen has taken up a task than which none more arduous and important, none worthier of thanks and praise, can be undertaken by an English scholar.  In his beautiful and valuable edition of Marlowe there are but two points to which exception may be taken.  It was, I think, a fault of omission to exclude the apocryphal play of “Lust’s Dominion” from a place in the appendix:  it was, I am certain, a fault of commission to admit instead of it the much bepuffed and very puffy rubbish of the late Mr. Home.  That clever, versatile, and energetic writer never went so far out of his depth or floundered so pitifully in such perilous waters as when he ventured to put verses of his own into the mouth of Christopher Marlowe.  These errors we must all hope to see rectified in a second issue of the text:  and meantime we can but welcome with all possible gratitude and applause the magnificent series of old plays by unknown writers which we owe to the keen research and the fine appreciation of Marlowe’s latest editor.  Of these I may find some future occasion to speak:  my present business is with the admirable poet who has been promoted to the second place in Mr. Bullen’s collection of the English dramatists.