Drayton, in Barons' Wars, Chapter 6, Line 80, says: "O dire revenge."

STILL RENEW.

In Act 5, Scene 2, Saturninus says: "And by her presence still renews his sorrows."

Drayton, in Polyolbion 1, page 108, says: "Old sorrows still renews."

Dekker seems to have written a small part of the play, as for instance the first and second scenes of Act 2. Ejaculations, such as the following, are used in these two scenes, and also by Dekker: "Trust me, O monstrous, gramercy, would serve your turn, and ring a hunter's peal." It was also a habit of Dekker to display his knowledge of Latin by inserting Latin phrases wherever he could, and so in Act 2, Scene 1, he makes Demetrius say: "Sit fas aut nefas, till I find the stream to cool this heat, a charm to calm these fits. Per stygia, per manes velor." I have thought that the words put by Dekker into the mouth of Horace, alias Jonson, in Satiro-mastix, concerning the innocent Moor cut in two in the middle, might refer to the play of Titus Andronicus. The words, as put into the mouth of Horace, alias Ben Jonson, are:

"As for Crispinus, that Crispin-asse, and Fannius, his play dresser, who (to make the Muses believe their subjects' ears were starved and that there was a dearth of poesy) cut an innocent Moor in the middle to serve him in twice; and when he had done, made Paul's work of it; as for these twins, these poet apes, their mimic tricks shall serve, with mirth, to feast our muse whilst their own starve."

This bloody and revolting play must have been written very hurriedly. It undoubtedly suited the taste of the frequenters of Henslowe's theatre. In Jonson's Bartholomew Fair, there is a sneer at those critics who will swear that "Jeronimo or Andronicus are the best plays yet." The Diary of Henslowe shows that Andronicus was acted at his theatre on several occasions in 1593, and the edition of 1600 recites that it had been often played by the theatrical servants of the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Derby, and the Earl of Sussex.

The reader will be amazed at the way Pericles has been treated by commentators. Heminge and Condell professed in their dedication to the Folio of 1623 to have collected and published Shaksper's works. Nevertheless the play of Pericles did not appear in that volume, although it had been printed in 1609 and 1619 and accredited on the title page to William Shakespeare. Heminge and Condell ought to have known of these editions and certainly of the play itself, for it was a popular play and held the stage for many years. It was not until 1664 that it appeared with what are now called the Shakespeare plays, and with no special authorization.

Rowe, in his edition of 1709, rejected it, saying that "it is owned that some part of Pericles was written by him (Shaksper), particularly the last scene."

Pope's edition followed Rowe's, and in his preface he declared that he "made no doubt that these wretched plays, Pericles, Locrine, Sir John Oldcastle, can not be admitted as his."

Following Pope and Rowe, Pericles was rejected by Warburton, Theobald, Hanmer, and Johnson, as well as by the common popular editions. It never would have

appeared again had it not been for Malone's insertion of it in his edition. Hallam declared that "from the poverty and bad management of the fable, the want of effective and distinguishable character and the general feebleness of the tragedy as a whole, I should not believe that structure to have been Shakespeare's." He elsewhere, in his "Literature of Europe," insists that "the play is full of evident marks of an inferior hand." Gifford rejects the play and styles it "the worthless Pericles." Collier says, opinion has long prevailed, and we have no doubt it is well founded, that two hands are to be traced in the composition of Pericles. The larger part of the first three acts were in all probability the work of an inferior dramatist."

"an

Here, then, we have a play which seems to have no real title to be called a Shakespeare play at all. Ben Jonson called it a "mouldy tale" made up "of scraps out of every dish."

The first impression on reading it carefully is that it was a play very hastily written, and it bears marks of collaboration. Any one who has studied Thomas Dekker's style and works will surely recognize Dekker's handiwork in parts of this play and especially in the fourth act. The conversation between the Pander, Bawd, and Boult, in Scene 3, is truly Dekkerian. So also are the conversations in Scene 6 of the same act. with the fisherman, in Scene expressions. "I'll fetch thee with a wanion" occurs in Act 2, Scene 1, of the Shoemakers' Holiday, and the phrase "the great ones eat the little ones" is found in the Roaring Girl, Act 3, Scene 3. Dekker's craving to display his knowledge of foreign languages finds ample scope in the next scene, wherein the devices upon the

In Act 2, the conversation 1, is full of Dekker's familiar

various shields are set out. Gower's songs are plainly the offspring of Dekker in part and Drayton in part. In Act 4, the phrase "Hight Philoten" is paralleled in Nymphidia, and the word "prest," in the sense of prepared, is similarly used by Drayton in his Harmony, at page 251.

I will quote a few instances of Draytonian expressions: In Act 2, Scene 5, Simonides says, "I am glad of it with all my heart."

In his Idea, Drayton says, "I am glad, yea, glad with all my heart."

In Act 2, Scene 3, Thais says, "To me he seems like diamond to glass."

In Shore to Edward, Drayton says, "To make a glass to seem a diamond."

Pericles says, "But like lesser lights did veil their crowns to his supremacy," while Drayton in Barons' Wars, C. 3, S. 18, says, "The lesser lights, like sentinels in war." In Act 2, Scene 4, First Lord says, "Wrong not yourself then, noble Helicane," while in Matilda, S. 70, Drayton says, "Wrong not thy fair youth, nor the world deprive." In Act 4, Scene 4, Cleon says, "Were I chief lord of all the spacious world," while in Isabel to Mortimer, Drayton says, "which was chief lord of the ascendant then." In Act 5, Scene 1, Pericles says, "Who starves the ears she feeds," while in Brandon to Mary, Drayton says "and starve mine ears to hear of my despatch."

I can find no trace of Bacon in this play.

CHAPTER XXXII.

RICHARD THE SECOND AND JULIUS CÆSAR EXAMINED.

"I'll example you with thievery."

-Timon of Athens, iv, 3.

The play of Richard the Second has attracted more attention than any other play contained in the Folio of 1623, for the reason that it gave rise to a famous incident in the Essex conspiracy. The following brief extract from the arraignment of Sir Gilly Merrick, as set out in Bacon's works, edition of 1803, 3d Vol., p. 183, shows how the play was linked with the story of that rebellion, the facts as to the acting of the play being introduced in evidence to show that Merrick was privy to the plot.

Merrick was commander over Essex House, and, to quote Bacon's words, "some few days before the rebellion (about February 1, 1600), with great heat and violence, he had displaced certain gentlemen lodged in an house fast by Essex-house, and there planted divers of my lord's followers and complices, all such as went forth with him in the action of rebellion. That the afternoon before the rebellion, Merrick, with a great company of others that afterwards were all in the action, had procured to be played before them the play of deposing King Richard the Second. Neither was it casual, but a play bespoken by Merrick. And not so only, but when it was told him by one of the players that the play was old, and they should have loss in playing it, because few would come to it, there were forty shillings extraordinary given to play it, and so thereupon played it was. So earnest was