slowe's Diary, where we find numerous notices concerning it, the earliest dated 26th February 1591-2, the latest 21st June 1596; and again, a notice of its revival 19th May, 1601.⁕ Though entered in the Stationers' Books 17th May 1594,† it remained in manuscript till 1633, when, after having been acted at court and the Cock-pit with prologues and epilogues by Heywood, it was published under the auspices of the same dramatist. The character of Barabas, upon which the interest of the tragedy entirely depends, is delineated with no ordinary power, and possesses a strong individuality. Unfortunately, however, it is a good deal overcharged; but I suspect, that in this instance at least, Marlowe violated the truth of nature, not so much from his love of exaggeration, as in consequence of having borrowed all the atrocities of the play from some now-unknown novel, whose author was willing to flatter the prejudices of his readers by attributing almost impossible wickedness to a son of Israel. "The first two acts of The Jew of Malta," observes Mr. Hallam," are more vigorously conceived, both as to character and circumstance, than any other Elizabethan play, except those of Shakespeare:"‡ but the latter part is in every respect so inferior, that we rise from a perusal of the whole with a feeling akin to disappointment. If the dialogue has little poetry, it has often Pp. 21-74, 187, ed. Shake. Soc. We also find (Id. p. 274) in an inventory of the stage-properties of the Lord Admiral's men, "j cauderm for the Jewe," i. e. the caldron into which Barabas falls. On the preceding day was entered "a ballad" on the same subject, derived, we may presume, from the tragedy. - Sir John Harington has the following couplet in an epigram written perhaps as early as 1592; "Was ever Jew of Malta or of Millain Then [Than] this most damned Jew more Jewish villain?" Introd. to the Lit. of Europe, ii. 170, ed. 1843. great force of expression. That Shakespeare was well acquainted with this tragedy cannot be doubted; but that he caught from it more than a few trifling hints for The Merchant of Venice will be allowed by no one who has carefully compared the character of Barabas with that of Shylock.*. An alteration of The Jew of Malta was produced at Drurylane Theatre in 1818, when Kean was in the zenith of his fame, and, owing to his exertions in Barabas, it was very favourably received. Warton incidentally mentions that Marlowe's Edward the Second was "written in the year 1590;"† and, for all we know, he may have made the assertion on sufficient grounds, though he has neglected to specify them. Mr. Collier, who regards it (and, no doubt, rightly) as one of our author's latest pieces, has not attempted to fix its date. It was entered in the Stationers' Books 6th July 1593, and first printed in 1598. From that heaviness, which prevails more or less in all "chronicle histories" anterior to those of Shakespeare, this tragedy is not wholly free; its crowded incidents do not always follow each other without confusion; and it has few of those "raptures," for which Marlowe is eulogized by one of his contemporaries. But, taken as a whole, it is the most perfect of his plays; there is no overdoing of character, no turgidity of language. On the two scenes which give the chief interest to this drama Lamb remarks; "the reluctant pangs of abdicating royalty in Edward furnished hints which Shakespeare scarce improved in his Richard the Second; and the death-scene of Marlowe's king moves pity and terror beyond any scene ancient or modern with which I am ac * See a considerable number of what have been called the parallel passages" of these two plays in the Appendix to Waldron's edition, and very ingenious continuation, of Jonson's Sad Shepherd, p. 209. † Hist. of Engl. Poet. iii. 438, ed. 4to. See the lines by Drayton afterwards quoted. quainted." "* The excellence of both scenes is indisputable; but a more fastidious critic than Lamb might perhaps justly object to such an exhibition of physical suffering as the latter scene affords. The Massacre at Paris was, we are sure, composed after August 2nd, 1589, when Henry the Third, with whose death it terminates, expired in consequence of the wound he had received from Jaques Clément the preceding day.† On the following entry in Henslowe's Diary,—" Rd at the tragedey of the guyes [Guise] 30 [January, 1593‡] ... iij3 . . . . iiijs,” — Mr. Collier observes, "In all probability Marlowe's Massacre at Paris. This entry is valuable, supposing it to apply to Marlowe's tragedy, because it ascertains the day it was first acted, Henslowe having placed ne [i. e. new] in the margin. It was perhaps Marlowe's last play, as he was killed about six months afterwards." Henslowe has several later entries concerning the performance of the same piece (which he also designates The Massacre); but probably, when he notices "the Guise" under the year 1598, § he refers to a revival of the tragedy with additions *Spec. of Engl. Dram. Poets, p. 28, ed. 1808. "The Jew of Malta contains, in its original prologue, spoken by Machiavel, an allusion to The Massacre at Paris, which had preceded it." Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poet. iii. 135. But when Mr. Collier made this remark, he had not yet seen Henslowe's MSS. and as to the words in question, " now the Guise is dead," -they only shew that The Jew of Malta was written after the death of the Duke of Guise. It is quite manifest, both from what precedes and what follows in the Diary, that Henslowe (who was an egregious blunderer) ought to have written here "1592," i. e. 1592-3 (see Diary, p. 30, ed. Shake. Soc.); and with that date the entry has been given by Malone, Shakespeare, by Boswell, iii. 299, as well as by Mr. Collier, Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poet. iii. 132. "Lent Wm Birde, alias Borne, the 27 of novembr [1598], to bye a payer of sylke stockens, to playe the Gwisse in }xxx." "Lent unto Wm Borne, the 19 of novembr, 1598, upon a longe and alterations. —It appears that in the play as originally written, the character of Guise was supported by Alleyn.* -The Massacre at Paris was printed without date (perhaps about 1595 or 1596), either from a copy taken down, during representation, by some unskilful and ignorant short-handwriter, or from a very imperfect transcript which had belonged to one of the theatres. It would be rash to decide on the merits of a play which we possess only with a text both mutilated † and abounding in corruptions; I strongly suspect, however, that The Massacre at Paris, even in its pristine state, was the very worst of Marlowe's dramas. We must now turn from his works to the personal history of Marlowe. It is not to be doubted that by this time he had become acquainted with most of those who, like himself, were dramatists by profession; and there can be little doubt too that beyond their circle (which, of course, included the actors) he had formed few intimacies. Though the demand for theatrical novelties was then incessant, plays were scarcely recognized as literature, and the dramatists were regarded as men who held a rather low rank in society the authors of pieces which had delighted thousands were generally looked down upon by the grave substantial citizens, and seldom presumed to approach the mansions of the aristocracy but as clients in humble attendance on the bounty of their patrons. Unfortunately, the discredit which attached to dramatic writing as an occupation was greatly increased by the habits of those who pursued taney clocke of clothe, the some of xij3, wch he sayd yt was to Imbrader his hatte for the Gwisse}xij. ” pp. 110, 113. At a later date Webster wrote a drama (now lost) which was called The Guise, and which is more likely to have been an original work than one founded upon Marlowe's tragedy. *In an inventory of theatrical apparel belonging to Alleyn is “hose” [i. e. breeches] . . . “for the Guises." Collier's Mem. of Alleyn, p. 21. + See note vol. ii. 336. it a few excepted, they were improvident, unprincipled, and dissolute, now rioting in taverns and "ordinaries" on the profits of a successful play, and now lurking in the haunts of poverty⁕ till the completion of another drama had enabled them to resume their revels.—At a somewhat later period, indeed, a decided improvement appears to have taken place in the morals of our dramatic writers: and it is by no means improbable that the high respectability of character which was maintained by Shakespeare and Jonson may have operated very beneficially, in the way of example, on the play-wrights around them. But among those of superior station there was at least one person with whom Marlowe lived on terms of intimacy: the publisher of his posthumous fragment, Hero and Leander, was induced to dedicate it" to the worshipful Sir Thomas Walsingham,† knight," because he had "bestowed upon the author many kind favours, entertaining the parts of reckoning and worth which he found in him with good countenance and liberal affection." Nor is this the only proof extant that Sir Thomas Walsingham cultivated a familiarity with the dramatists of his day; for to him, as to his "long-loved and honourable friend," Chapman has inscribed by a sonnet the comedy of Al Fooles, 1605.§ The author of The Atheist's Tragedie has not failed to notice such vicissitudes of fortune in Marlowe's case; "A poet was he of repute, And wrote full many a playe, See vol. iii,—Appendix iv. † Sir Thomas Walsingham, knight, of Chesilhurst in Kent. He married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Sir Peter Manwood, knight of the Bath (see note, p. v.), and died in 1630, aged See Thorpe's Registrum Roffense, p. 933, and Hasted's Hist. of Kent, i. 99. See vol. iii. 3. 69. § This poetical dedication is found, I believe, in only a single copy of the play. |