as, of course, this youthful work is likewise not free from 'æsthetic defects.'

*

The main points of the question, however, are the supposed differences in diction and versification, which Delius maintains are to be found. And he is right in observing that the style of Shakspeare's youthful playsin contrast to the conciseness and the great wealth of thought in his later diction-is distinguished by greater clearness and perspicuity; and that as regards the versification, we invariably find in his earliest dramas the regular, often monotonously regular cadence of the blank verse which he had adopted from his dramatic predecessors, but subsequently changed into the greatest variety of forms, adapting it to every turn of the dramatic purpose. This generally constitutes the difference of style between Shakspeare's earliest and his latest works, the intermediate ones forming a kind of transition stage. In single features, however, there occur important exceptions to this rule, both as regards modifications and deviations; in his earliest comedies, for instance (more particularly in 'Love's Labour's Lost'), frequent passages in rhyme and so-called doggerel verses, interrupt the regular flow of the blank verse; further, in several cases we find a freer treatment of the rhythm where the syllables are not so accurately measured and weighed (as in the speech of the Duke and Egeon's story, in the Comedy of Errors,' act i. 1). And yet the language and versification in Pericles' show a greater resemblance to Shakspeare's later works than to his earlier ones. However, it is Delius alone who supposes Pericles' to fall into two pretty-well defined halves, of which the first half, as well as the plan of the whole, is thought to be the work of a predecessor of Shakspeare's, the second half his own.

Clark and Wright, the editors of the Cambridge Edition, are of a different opinion and consider that there can be no doubt that the hand of Shakspeare is traceable in many of the scenes, and that throughout the play he largely rotouched and even rewrote the work of some other dramatist.' I, on my part, cannot, as a rule, find any essential difference in the diction and versification of * This I pointed out in my last edition.

the two halves; and in this alone can I agree with Delius, that Shakspeare, as it seems, showed decided preference for the part of Marina, and perhaps rewrote the whole of it. In single features, on the other hand, the first half certainly does show greater irregularities, more obscurity of expression, more ellipses, more passages in rhyme, more lame and rugged lines--in short, more deviations from Shakspeare's style, than is the case with the second half. However, we cannot here, attribute any great importance to single features. For like all other critics, Delius also expressly admits that the manuscript from which the earliest quarto was printed, and subsequently simply reprinted, had been procured by the publisher (F. Gosson) in an illegal manner, and that it was an 'obviously incomplete and very carelessly written manuscript.' However, 'carelessly written' is much too mild an expression for the state in which the text of this quarto and its successors have been handed down to us. From the notes to the Cambridge Edition, which give the original readings and the divisions of the verse, it is evident that an almost incredible confusion prevails in the original text: regular blank verse occurs but as an exception, most of the speeches, which were probably written in blank verse, are printed either as prose, or the lines are divided so at random that they have no resemblance whatever to blank verse. Malone, Steevens, and the later editors have, all in turn, endeavoured to turn them into good or bad blank verse,-no wonder, therefore, that the lines have often turned out lame and rugged. It can now scarcely be conjectured what may have been the original form of the rhythm and versification; in any case, it is more than hazardous to try to decide the question as to the genuineness or spuriousness of the play, from the present condition of the language and versification.

It is self-evident that the substance, the sense, and the expression of ideas have suffered much in the same way as their outward form. And, in fact, together with the undeniable corruptions and omissions in the text, there is, in this respect, such confusion and inequality-in general a sketchy meagreness, occasionally a superfluous wealth of words that we are again obliged to hesitate, and not allow

our judgment about the general impression to be determined by details. And if, in both respects, the first half shows in single features more deviations from Shakspeare's style than the second, this may have arisen from Shakspeare's having there altered less. It is, however, also possible that the second half was copied or taken down by a better, more attentive, or more skilful short-hand writer or copyist.*

6

That 'Pericles,' as a whole, generally makes the impression of being a work of Shakspeare's, is confirmed by Delius himself, in so far as he finds a close affinity between it and 'Timon of Athens.' This he, it is true, considers a proof of the spuriousness of Pericles;' for, as we have seen, he also considers Timon of Athens' to be the work of an inferior poet, which Shakspeare improved or remodelled on a larger scale. However, in my opinion this affinityeven though, as I think, it is not so great as Delius represents-speaks only against him and in my favour. In the first place, it is a contradiction, or at least very inconsistent, when Delius considers it a proof of its spuriousness, that Heminge and Condell have not admitted Pericles' into their collection of Shakspeare's works, and, on the other hand, will not trust their testimony in

* Delius considers the frequent rhymes in the first half of the play, and more especially the rhyming couplets in the middle of a speech, with its often inappropriate or trival subject, to be particularly un-Shakspearian. However, such couplets are not at all so wholly unlike Shakspeare; they occur, perhaps not so frequently, but often enough in his earlier plays, especially in his comedies; also in Richard III. (i. 1; v. 3, in the utterances of the ghosts) we find a few instances. If we assume that Pericles had originally been written as early as 1586-87, it is quite conceivable that Shakspeare might have frequently employed rhymes, which were in general use before the introduction of blank verse, even though he wrote the play in blank verse (with alternate prose for the remarks of the sailors, the pander, etc.). It may be, however, that Pericles was not originally written in blank verse, but that it received this dress only in its later remodelling. At all events passages in rhyme and inserted couplets had come into disuse towards 1607-8, and occur as seldom in the younger poets as in Shakspeare's later works. Some of these couplets do certainly appear most awkwardly introduced and lame in form and substance. But who can guarantee that the person who took down the first half of Pericles from the mouths of the actors, did not simply take note of the final rhymes, and afterwards fill up the lines as he pleased?

6

·

6

6

the case of Timon of Athens,' which is admitted by them. Delius says: "The sole reason for the non-admission of 'Pericles' into the folio of 1623 can only have been that the publishers were fully aware that Shakspeare had had a very small hand in the composition of the play, that he had neither sketched the plot nor, in the first instance, worked it out, but had only subsequently made additions to the work of some other inferior poet; hence precisely the same, or at least a similar circumstance as that which, I think, can be established in the case of Timon of Athens;'"-these words turn their full weight against Delius himself. For it is the supposition only of Delius that Shakspeare made a greater number of alterations and corrections in Timon of Athens;' if the general impression be overlooked, and single features taken into consideration, then, I think, as many actual or apparently un-Shaksperian passages, turns, etc., can be adduced against Timon of Athens' as against 'Pericles,' and the question is only whether we are for this reason to infer the spuriousness of Timon of Athens.' But even granted that Delius is right, still Heminge and Condell would have been no less wrong in including Timon of Athens' among Shakspeare's works, had they known for certain that it had originally been written by some other poet-a proceeding which they were equally well aware was entirely opposed to the feelings and character of their deceased friendas, of course, a few or more corrections cannot either give or take the right to a literary work. The genuineness of Timon of Athens' is therefore, I think, so fully proved by the testimony of Heminge and Condell, that so-called internal criticism cannot be taken into consideration, especially when supported upon single features. For we must not forget that to judge of the genuineness or spuriousness of a work from its style and character, is always more or less unsafe, partly because our judgment is based upon mere feeling, what is called the feeling for style, partly because the great masters in art and poetry are not always equal in their works, sometimes strongly influenced by the spirit and character of some other master, sometimes even intentionally working in the style of some other master. If Rafaelle's celebrated painting

of the prophet Isaiah (which is worked out in the style of Michel-Angelo) were not authenticated by the surest external evidence, many a connoisseur would have great doubts about its genuineness. And Michel-Angelo's Cupid, which he had buried in an appropriate spot to deceive the enthusiastic admirers of the antique style, was universally regarded as an ancient masterpiece till the artist himself brought forward the arms which he had broken off, and thus proved it to be his own work. The greater, therefore, the affinity between 'Pericles' in its present form, and 'Timon of Athens,' the more indubitable its genuineness becomes.*

*Delius considers that, on account of this affinity, both plays might have been written by one and the same inferior poet. He believes, moreover, that he has discovered this poet in the person of G. Wilkins, the author of the above-mentioned True History of the Play of Pericles, which appeared in print in 1608. I fear that Delius will not gain much by this discovery; at least, the reasons which he adduces in favour of his conjecture, I do not find plausible, or even tenable. In the first place, he appeals to the nature of Wilkins' narrative, which he thinks is made up, without any addition of his own, and of almost equal parts, of two different elements sufficiently well known at the time-an old popular book by L. Twine, which appeared in print in 1576, under the title of The Patterne of painfull Adventures, etc., (which gives old Gower's story of Pericles) and the play of Pericles. Now, Delius argues that as the author of this compilation nevertheless ventures in the dedication to his patron, Henry Fermor, the magistrate of the county of Middlesex, hence a person of consequence-to call his narrative ‘a poore infant of my braine,' the only way by which he could escape being suspected and accused of the most barefaced and undeniable plagiarism would be by supposing one of these parts to have been his own work. However, this argument has no weight, owing to the simple fact that, in those days, the ideas concerning plagiarism and mental property were quite different, much more indefinite and loose, and more favourable to theft than in our own day. But, moreover, even according to our present ideas, there is, in reality, no question about plagiarism in the case of Wilkins. For on the titlepage he expressly says that his novel tells the story of the play of Pericles, and at the end of the long argument he again refers to his authority by saying: 'Onely intreating the Reader to receive this Historie in the same manner as it was under the habit of ancient Gower, the famous English Poet, by the King's Maiesties Players excellently presented.' He who so openly and definitely states the source from which he has drawn, is no plagiarist. No one would accuse Ch. Lamb of being a plagiarist on account of his well-known and popular Tales from Shakspeare, although they are more closely allied tc Shakspeare's plays than Wilkins's novel. According to Delius, however