These are the two plays that are bound up in the same volume with 'The Merry Devil of Edmonton,' and ascribed by the bookbinder to Shakspeare. Tieck* defends The Fair Em. as a work of Shakspeare's, by the remark that: 'The evidence of the bookbinder, whoever he may have been, cannot be unconditionally rejected, for it, at all events, belongs to a period in which Shakspeare's name was esteemed less than that of Fletcher's. Moreover, the owner of the book certainly cannot have intended the title to deceive anyone but himself. Further, Shakspeare most probably came to London earlier than is generally assumed. If he had been there as early as 1584-85, and if necessity or inclination had induced him to write for the stage without giving his name, then this sketchwhich has no pretension to characterisation, language or invention-is perhaps the production of a young man, who, without preparation or learning, and apparently without a poet's vocation, gave the theatre a mere shadowplay, without life or substance; it is simply too bad and insignificant to be a work of Marlowe's or Greene's, to whom the play has been ascribed by many, for, although the first scene and the introduction possess a certain resemblance to "Friar Bacon," still it has nothing of the poetical spirit, or the ease and grace of that old poem.'

Tieck can scarcely have himself found these reasons conclusive. For he admits that the play is not good enough to be a work of Greene's-who, as is well-known, produced a good deal of small ware-that it has no pretension to characterisation, language or invention. If, therefore, according to his own opinion, the play has not the faintest resemblance to Shakspeare's style, but even separated by a wide gulf from Pericles and Titus Andronicus, then all that could speak in favour of its being Shakspeare's work is, in fact, reduced to the testimony of the title given by the bookbinder. How weak such evidence is, has been sufficiently proved in the case of 'The Merry Devil of Edmonton.' The play may cer tainly have been written by a young man who, without efther learning or preparation, and probably without a poet's vocation, had devoted himself to the stage from Preface to his Vorschule Shakspeare's, ii. p. 7.

inclination or necessity; but why this youth should be Shakspeare, is decidedly not easy to see. What is very probable is, that the owner of the book had Shakspeare's name put upon it simply because he lived in an age in which Shakspeare's name was held in much lower estimation than Fletcher's or Ben Jon on's. The owner of the book may, for instance, have known nothing of Shakspeare, or at least have known him only superficially (perhaps through the spectacles of Tateham, who in 1652 called Shakspeare the plebeian driller'); but, being struck by the very general external resemblance of the three plays among one another, and by the dramatic style of the Shakspearian age, and also for the sake of a title, he ascribed them to the poet whose name was best known to the age in which they were printed.

This hypothesis has, at all events, as much foundation as any other. If, accordingly, the title given by the bookbinder proves nothing, it would but little alter the case to admit that Shakspeare arrived in London as early as 1584–85, and that he came forward immediately as a dramatic poet. For Shakspeare, even at twenty years of age, must surely have possessed some poetical talent, and of this-as Tieck himself admits-there is no trace in the work.

Lastly, among those plays which, as I think, are undoubtedly spurious, is, The London Prodigal. Of this play the only extant earlier edition had appeared in 1605, and has Shakspeare's name in full on the titlepage. Otherwise, however, we know nothing of the piece, as it is not mentioned either in Henslowe's Diary or in the Stationers' registers. And if we knew as little about the impudence which induced the publisher or printer of the above edition to declare Shakspeare to be the author, I am convinced that it would never have occurred to anyone to ascribe it to Shakspeare. In the first place, it cannot be one of his youthful works. The author displays too much acquaintance with the stage, too much knowledge and experience of life, for a young poet; the language also betrays a practised writer who found it a

* In the Supplement to Johnson and Steevens' edition of Shak speare's Plays, ii. 449 f.

simple task to dramatise the subject. Malone maintains, very justly, I think, that, to judge from a passage in the first act, it must have been written in 1603 or 1604. It cannot have been one of Shakspeare's later works, for it is far inferior in poetic character and artistic merit to either Pericles' or Titus Andronicus.' Taken as a whole it is little better than 'Sir John Oldcastle,' with which it has so much affinity, both internal and external, that it may perhaps belong to one of the four abovementioned poets (Monday, Drayton, Wilson or Hathaway), but at all events to the popular school par excellence, of which Heywood may be called the head. It is precisely in the spirit of this school (which, after Shakspeare's appearance, unquestionably took his masterpieces as its models) that we here find a correct, lifelike, but light and superficial delineation of character. The versification and language are flowing and clever, but wanting in power and elevation, poor in thought, and meagre in the expression of emotion and passion. In like manner the scenes change in a measured and graceful movement, but the action runs more upon the thread of an external story; it does not rise naturally from the depths of the feelings, from the fundamental dispositions of the characters; the personages act more from outward than from inward motives. Luce, for instance, sacrifices herself simply because she is the wife-even though contrary to her wish -of her worthless husband, and the latter, the Prodigal, suddenly becomes a reformed character because of the self sacrificing devotion of his wife.

Again, the comic element is quite external, and consists merely of the patois of a Devonshire clothier, of the sneers and jokes made by the servants, and, it may be, of the naïve silliness of Civet and his young wife. Of that inward play of humour and irony which prevails in all Shakspeare's comedies, and gives them their deep significance, the author of the present play has no conception.I have taken so much trouble to bring to light Shakspeare's peculiarity in this respect, that I think I may claim the right to lay special stress upon this point in a critical examination of works supposed to be written by Shakspeare, at all events more than upon all other details,

which almost any writer of ordinary talent can, to a certain extent, imitate. A poet's style of composition rests pre-eminently and directly upon his poetical view of life, and this no one can simply appropriate to himself. Now, in the present case, as in 'Sir John Oldcastle,' we indeed meet with Shakspeare's custom of allowing several actions and several groups of figures to advance simultaneously. But these different circles are not, as in Shakspeare, internally, organically connected with one another, they are hardly linked together externally, mechanically; the story of the Prodigal has not the faintest connection with the love affairs of Bisam, Oliver, and Sir Arthur. These characters, as well as Mr. Weathercock, Delia, etc., mere secondary personages, without any poetical significance. The play is divided into a dramatic action and a number of quite unimportant incidents, into dramatic characters and mere dummies, and therefore in reality falls to pieces. Hence we everywhere find the same superficiality into which popular writers so readily fall when aiming exclusively at momentary effect.

are

As regards the two plays: The Puritan, or the Widow of Watling Street *--which is entered at Stationers' Hall under the date of the 6th of August. 1601, and was printed in the same year with Shakspeare's initials, W. S. (perhaps Wentworth Smith)-and The History of King Stephan, which does not even possess the authority of these initials, I may spare myself the trouble of proving their spuriousness, since no one but booksellers and conpilers of catalogues have ascribed them to Shakspeare. The Duke Humphrey, a Tragedy, which even Drake mentions among the spurious plays, is most probably the second part of Shakspeare's Henry VI.'

* Supplement to Johnson and Stce; ons' edition, l. c. ii. 533 ff.

CHAPTER V.

LOCRINE. THE TROUBLESOME REIGN OF KING JOHN. ARDE OF FEVERSHAM. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF THE LORD

CROMWELL.

Or the really doubtful plays the oldest is perhaps The Lamentable Tragedie of Locrine, the eldest Son of King Brutus, etc. It is, indeed, not mentioned in the books of the Stationers' Company till July 20th, 1594, and was printed by Thomas Creede in 1595. But even the remark on the title-page: As newly set foorthe, overseene and corrected by W. S.'-from which it has been inferred that Shakspeare was the author of the play-proves that it was an older piece that was then revived. This is also evident from several passages which are written throughout in rhyme, and again from the strong colours used in describing the warlike, patriotic spirit which pervades the play, and from the evident allusions to the events of the years 1586-88, when England was dreading the intrigues of Mary Queen of Scots, and was threatened by the Spanish Armada. Hence the play may have first appeared in those years.

Tieck gives a translation of it in his 'Early English Theatre,' and pronounces it to be a youthful work of Shakspeare's. He thinks that it contains, in embryo, most of Shakspeare's later plays, and that a searching eye must every where recognise his genius; further, that it distinctly lears witness to his predilection for the bizarre and the gigantesque, nay, that most of the speeches merely repeat the tone given by rude Pyrihus in 'Hamlet' (a tirade which is undoubtedly taken from one_of_the poet's earlier plays); that, accordingly, when England was again in dread of a Spanish Armada, Shakspeare, in 1595, merely republished it with additions and improve* Alt-Englisches Theater.