the historian is to place the heroes who seem to resume the spirit of their several epochs, in proper relation to the world-spirit. As was right and necessary, the authors of our Chronicle Plays made history subservient to art, and character more potent than circumstance. Yet they abstained from violating the general outlines of the annals which they dramatised. They introduced no figmentary matter of importance, and rarely deviated from tradition to enhance effect. Their chief licence consisted in altering the relative proportion of events, in concentrating the action of many years within the space of a few hours, and in heightening for tragic purposes the intellectual and moral stature of commanding personages. Episodical incidents were freely invented; but always with the object of enforcing and colouring the fact as they received it from the annalists. Only here and there, as in Peele's dastardly libel on the good Queen Eleanor, do we find a deliberate attempt to falsify history for a purpose of the moment. I do not of course mean to assert that any of our dramatists were conscientious in the scientific sense of the word, and that they did not share the common prejudices of their age. What I wish to insist upon is that they approached the historical drama from the epical point of view, and that their main object was the scenic reproduction of history rather than the employment of historical material for any further-reaching purpose. Were it not for Shakspere's Chronicle Plays, it might be hardly needful to dwell at considerable length upon this species. But these masterpieces are so unique in their kind, combining as they do fidelity to the main sources at the dramatist's command with perfect artistic freedom in a harmony unparalleled, that it behoves us to consider the crude work of his predecessors. In the best plays of Shakspere's historical series, the heroes of English annals are glorified, but not metamorphosed. That grasp of character which enabled him to create a Hamlet and a Lady Macbeth, was here employed in resuscitating real men and women from their graves. He translated them to the sphere of poetry without altering their personal characteristics. Only, instead of flesh and blood, he gave in his scenes portraits of them, such as Titian or Rubens might have painted, by dwelling on their salient qualities, flattering without sycophancy, and revealing the dark places of the soul without animosity. I propose to arrange the non-Shaksperian plays on English history in four groups. The first consists of dramas founded on mythical events. The second is the body of Chronicle Plays, properly so called. The third is a set of biographical dramas, bringing English worthies or famous characters upon the stage. The fourth group deals with semi-legendary heroes dear to the English people, or with pleasant episodes in the traditionary lives of their princes. III. We have seen that the earliest tragedies of the pseudo-classic school were founded on the legendary history of England-Gorboduc' and 'The Misfortunes of Arthur.' A proper third to these two stilted plays may be found in 'Locrine;' the subject of which is the death of Brutus, first king of Britain, with the subsequent adventures of his three sons. This drama, a piece of passable but wooden workmanship, has long been included in the list of Shakspere's Doubtful Plays. There is, however, no shadow of reason for supposing that Shakspere had a hand in it.' 'Locrine' is written throughout in a level style of vulgar and pedestrian bombast, tumid with the metaphors and classical mythology which Greene made fashionable, and which Marlowe transfigured. Humber, described as 'King of the Scythians,' wanders fasting through North English deserts, and soliloquises: Ne'er came sweet Ceres, ne'er came Venus here; Ne'er sowed his seed in this foul wilderness. The hunger-bitten dogs of Acheron, Chased from the nine-fold Pyriphlegethon, Have set their footsteps in this damnèd ground. All the characters, Britons and Scythians, with the exception of the comic personages, who are not totally devoid of merit, talk this fine language. Such interest 1 It was printed in 1595, as 'newly set forth, overseen and corrected by W. S.' On this foundation the editor of the folio Shakspere, 1664, included it in his collection. The best passages of the play, act iv. sc. 4 for example, are very much in the manner of Greene. 'LOCRINE' AND 'KING LEIR? 369 as the play possesses, is due to the fact that it constitutes a hybrid between the type of Gorboduc' and the new romantic drama. The subject is treated romantically; but the author has freely indulged his pseudoclassic partiality for ghosts. He introduces each act with a dumb show, which is explained by Até 'in black, with a burning torch in one hand, and a bloody sword in the other.' He makes two heroes, on the point of suicide, declaim Latin hexameters, and puts Latin mottoes like 'Regit omnia numen' or 'In pœnam sectatur et umbra,' into the mouth of his spectres. There are no less than five suicides altogether in the action, the poet being apparently unable to make his personages kill each other. The History of King Leir and his Three Daughters' takes higher rank than Locrine.' The unknown writer of the piece deals in the sober spirit of an honest craftsman with the old English legend, which gave to Shakspere material for the most terrific of all extant masterpieces. The style is plain and sturdy; free from the intolerable pedantries and pettinesses of Greene's mythologising school. There is considerable power in the characterisation of the three sisters, and no little pathos in the situation of Leir and Perillus. Leir, Gonorill, Ragan, Cordella, and Perillus, indeed, only awaited the magic-working hand of Shakspere to become the Lear, Goneril, Regan, Cordelia, and Kent of his tremendous tragedy. Yet it must not be thought that the master owed anything considerable to this old play; for these characters, together with the main situations of the drama, were clearly given in the prose story. What he has added, in the episode of BB Gloucester and his sons, in the Fool's part, and in the tragic close, is Shakspere's own invention. The playwright of King Leir,' adhering to the letter of his text, left Cordella happy with her father at the drama's ending. We shall never know what moved Shakspere to drop that pall of darkness upon the mystery of inscrutable woe at the very moment when there dawned a brighter day for Lear united to his blameless daughter. For once, it would appear, he chose to sound the deepest depths of the world's suffering, a depth deeper than that of Æschylean or Sophoclean tragedy, deeper than the tragedy of 'Othello,' deeper than Malebolge or Caina, a stony black despairing depth of voiceless and inexplicable agony. IV. The third play of this group brings us once more face to face with the problem of inferior works doubtfully or falsely attributed to Shakspere. In dealing with these so-called Doubtful Plays, we are 'wandering about in worlds not realised,' with no sure clue to guide us, tantalised by suspicious tradition. We know that before Shakspere began his great series of authentic and undisputed dramas, he spent some years of strenuous activity as a journeyman for the Company of Players he had joined. At this period he was certainly employed in revising earlier compositions for the stage, and was probably engaged as a collaborator with unknown poets in the preparation of new plays. That fairly competent writers for the theatre, men capable of plain dramatic handiwork, and not devoid of skill to imitate the manner of superior masters, |
