CHAPTER IV. THE ARRAIGNMENT OF PARIS. SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE. THE MERRY DEVIL OF EDMONTON. THE FAIR EM. MUCEDORUS. THE LONDON PRODIGAL. THE PURITAN. THE HISTORY OF KING STEPHAN. THE DUKE HUMPHREY. BEFORE proceeding to apply the s'andard furnished by 'lericles,' Titus Andronicus,' 'Henry VI.' and the comedies mentioned at the end of our last chapter, to the criticism of the earlier plays the genuineness of which is really doubtful, we must first strike off the list those of which it is clear, from internal as well as external evidence, that Shakspeare had no hand in their composition. These are: 1. The Arraignment of Paris, a play which has been discussed in our first volume, p. 131 f., and was in 1660 ascribed to Shakspeare by the booksellers Kirkman and Winstanley; but, according to the express testimony of Nash, in his Epistle to the Gentlemen Students of both Universities,' prefixed to R. Greene's Arcadia,' was a work of Peele's. Opposed to testimony of such weight, the inner nature of the piece itself would prove nothing, even granted--which however is far from being the case -that its inner nature would justify our ascribing it to Shakspeare. 2. Sir John Oldcastle,* although published in 1600 by the bookseller, T. P. (Thomas Pavier), with Shakspeare's name in full on the title-page, is nevertheless assuredly not written by him. For in several entries in Henslowe's Diary † (in October, November, and December, 1599), the authors of the play are expressly said to be Monday, *Reprinted in the Supplement to the Edition of Shakspeare's Plays, published in 1778 by S. Johnson and G. Steevens. London, 1780; ii. 265 £ + Henslowe's Diary, pp. 158, 162, 166, 236 f. Drayton, Wilson and Hathaway; moreover, as already remarked, Pavier was subsequently compelled to cancel Shakspeare's name on the original title-page. Yet Tieck * appears to consider it a work of Shakspeare's, at least he has admitted it in his translation of four of Shakspeare's plays, without a word of explanation. Tieck's opinion, although often very justly doubted in matters of criticism, is always deserving of consideration. Therefore, let us examine the character of the play somewhat more closely. In the first place, it is very important to observe that the piece must have been written after the appearance of Shakspeare's Henry IV.' This is clearly evident from the prologue and several passages in the play itself, where allusion is made to Falstaff, Poins, and Peto, to the merry life led by Prince Henry, his thefts, etc. This agrees perfectly with the entry in Henslowe's diary, according to which the play was first acted in 1599, and paid for as a new piece. If, therefore, the play was written in 1598, I must honestly confess that it is to me inconceivable how, for a moment, it can be regarded as a work of Shakspeare's. The invention, the diction, the characterisation, and the composition and a number of details,-in short, no less than everything, speaks decisively against such a supposition. I shall merely direct attention to a few points. In the first place, what could have induced Shakspeare so utterly to destroy his own representation of the character of Henry V., so diametrically to contradict himself, and to describe the king-whom, from the very first, he made so royal in appearance as quite the reverse, not only as delighting in the remembrance of his youthful excesses, but also as playing at dice in disguise with the most worthless and lowest of characters! Further, how is it possible to assume that Shakspeare, when at the very meridian of his poetical career, should have published a drama in which several entirely different actions are so badly patched together, that inwardly the whole falls to pieces! What, for instance, in its significance, has the story of Lord l'owis to do with the conspiracy of the Earl of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey, and the latter with the fortunes of Sir * Vier Schauspiele von Shakspetre, Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1836. John Oldcastle and the rash rebellion of Acton, Beverley and Murley! A number of secondary personages, such as Lord Herbert and Sir Richard Lee, the Irishman, and Sir John Wrotham with his Dolly, the Duke of Suffolk, the Earl of Huntingdon, and Butler, Chartres, Cromer, the Judges, the Mayor, the Bailiff, the Host, et›., are mere dummies; these are hardly interwoven with the action externally, and render it necessary to introduce a number of scenes the poetical significance of which, when closely examined, is reduced to nothing. The principal characters are, indeed, generally speaking, correctly drawn, but are nevertheless quite wanting in that fulness and roundness, that inward depth, that ease of movement and progressive development which distinguish Shakspeare's figures. In like manner the language is flowing and suitable, the dialogue animated and unconstrained, but devoid of elevation, poor in thought as well as in poetic imagery— accordingly, although usually free from long speeches, it is nevertheless flat and tame, at all events, very different from the poetic dignity, the solidity and fullness, as well as from the historical brevity and energy of the diction in 'Richard II,,'' Henry IV.,' etc. Lastly, the comic scenes specially-for instance, between the Summoner, Harpool, Sir John of Wrotham, Dolly, etc., or between Acton, Boure, Beverley and Murley-not only have not the slightest bearing upon the proper action of the play, but are, for the most part, so low and spiritless, that not a spark of Shakspeare's facetious grace' is to be discovered in them. The whole betrays a poet who, it is true, endeavoured to form himself upon Shakspeare's masterpieces, nay, even to imitate him, but who stood far below him in genius and talent. 3. The Merry Devil of Edmonton * is a comedy that has been ascribed to Shakspeare simply because it was found bound up with two other pieces in one volume on the back of which was printed Shakespeare, vol. i.† Upon the authority of the bookbinder, Kirkman the * Reprinted in the latest edition of Dodsley's Old Plays, 1825, vol. v †The volume formerly belonged to Charles the Seccnd, and after wards came into the possession of Garrick. bookseller affixed Shakspeare's name to the play in his catalogue, whereas Thomas Coxeter (according to Knight, a laborious antiquary,' who died in 1747) and Oldys maintain it to have been a work of Michel Drayton's. However, under the date of April 5th, 1608, we have the following entry on the Stationers' register: Joseph Huntard, Thom. Archer (the publishers): A book called the Lyfe and Deathe of the Merry Devill of Edmonton, with the pleasant pranks of Smugge the Shmyth, Sir John and mine Hoste of the George, about their stealing of Venison. By T. B. Froin the express mention of the comic characters, it is clear that this is the same play which Tieck* likewise maintains to be a work of Shakspeare's, but it is as evident that the additional remark, By T. B., is meant to intimate the name of the author. The play is, I think, better than 'Sir John Oldcastle;' Charles Lamb even speaks of it with a warmth of admiration, and Knight, although considering this praise' as carried a little too far,' willingly admits its value. In so far it might not be impossible to regard it as one of Shakspeare's youthful works; but in the Blacke Booke, by T. M.' (which was printed in 1604), it is mentioned together with Thomas Heywood's A Woman Killed with Kindness,' and moreover in such a manner as to convey the impression that both plays were then quite new and great favourites with the multitude which is an established fact as regards Heywood's A Woman Killed with Kindness.'§ This circumstance alone might justify the conjecture that The Merry Devil of Edmonton' was also a work of Heywoods, and that, by a misprint in the Stationers' register, B. stands for H., particularly as the play shows the closest affinity to Heywood's style, and as there is no eminent poet of the period known by the initials T. B. At any rate, all possibility of its being a work of Shakspeare's vanishes, if it appeared as late as 1602 and 1604. For, in spite of its many excelleuces, it is much too bad to be one of Shakspeare's maturer works from the best period of his poetical *Altenglisches Theater, vol. ii. † Studies of Shakspere, p. 288 f. 6 § Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, iii. 77. 2 B career. Apart from the differences in tone, colouring and language which distinctly bear witness against its being Shakspeare's, the comic scenes, although better than those in Sir John Oldcastle,' are nevertheless not in the least Shakspearian. The wit is more the wit of the multitude, quite in the spirit of such a writer as Heywood, but for that very reason wholly wanting in Shakspeare's fine irony and his deep latent humour. The action, it is true, is developed with great ease and a graceful movement, the scenes are well arranged and run smoothly into one another, but there is no trace of that living, internal unity and harmony such as we have in Shakspeare's works. The story of Fabel and his compact with the devil, stand quite apart and altogether outside of the real action, and the love intrigue between Millisent and young Mounchensey is only externally and very loosely connected with the poaching adventures of the priest, the host, the smith, and the miller; these personages and their doings stand internally in no sort of connection with the main action, and are, therefore, in reality quite superfluous. It is the same with the language and characterisation. Both give proof of the poet's talent in writing good and pleasing poetry for the multitude. But Shakspeare's genius, which possessed the power of closely blending the light and popular with the loftiest and gravest, could not at least in the year 1600-have written merely to please the multitude. The Merry Devil of Edmonton is clearly the work of a poet of the Shakspearian School, and formed under Shakspeare's influence; it was evidently meant to be a fantastic comedy in Shakspeare's style. Now the fantastic style is, of all species of comedy, the most difficult; it demands the greatest depth and truth of poetic intuition, and of this the otherwise talented author possessed little. In short, the play is certainly not Shakspeare's. To these plays, the spuriousness of which is abundantly proved by external evidence, I shall add two others which are scarcely supported by external reasons, and must at once be rejected on account of all internal evidence: The Fair Em. and Mucedorus. |