bookseller affixed Shakspeare's name to the play in his catalogue, whereas Thomas Coxeter (according tc 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. From 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 Heywood's, 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 excellences, 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. § Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, iii. 77. VOL. II. 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. 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 sketch— which 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.' 6 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 either 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 Jonson'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. 6 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, |