practical impiety of his life may have justified such an imputation, it would be presumptuous to hazard a judgment.

Greene died in September, 1592. His Groat's Worth of Wit, edited by Chettle, was published immediately afterwards. The genuineness of the pamphlet was doubted; and suspicion of the authorship fell upon Nash. It was also, in some quarters, ascribed to Chettle. They both denied it; and we learn from Chettle's disclaimer that Marlowe and Shakspeare took offence at the personal reflections made upon them, and went so far as to charge Chettle with having fabricated the work himself. His reply possesses a direct interest in reference to Marlowe, as it distinctly indicates that Greene had written worse things about him than Chettle had published.

With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I never be; the other, whom at this time I did not so much spare as since I wish I had, for that as I have moderated the heat of living writers, and might have used my own discretion (especially in such a case), the author being dead, that I did not, I am as sorry as if the original fault had been my fault, because myself have seen his demeanour no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes; besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which augurs his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art. For the first, whose learning I reverence, and, at the perusing of Greene's book, struck out what

* Henry Chettle was one of the most prolific playwrights of his day. He is supposed to have been concerned in the production of forty pieces. Of his merits as a dramatist we have but imperfect means of forming an opinion, only four pieces conjectured to be his having come down to us. Although he wrote some grave and ponderous scenes, his strength lay chiefly in humour, of which we have an excellent sample in Babulo, the clown in Patient Grisseil. Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, 1598, speaks of Chettle as being one of the best for comedy.' Chettle seems to have been originally a compositor, and was certainly engaged in the printing business in 1591. He died about 1607, and is mentioned by Dekker in his Knight's Conjuring, 'in comes Chettle, sweating and blowing by reason of his fat

ness.'

+ Greene died on the 3rd of September, and on the 20th the Groat's Worth of Wit was entered on the Stationers' Register.

then in conscience I thought he had in some displeasure writ; or had it been true, yet to publish it was intolerable: him I would wish to use now no worse than I deserve.*

The lines in italics plainly refer to Marlowe, whose character comes out in painful contrast to that of Shakspeare. The explanation is creditable to the manliness of Chettle. Compelled to relieve himself from the aspersion of having fabricated a pamphlet in Greene's name, he expresses regret that he had not exercised his editorial discretion over the passage that reflected on Shakspeare, having subsequently learned how upright he was in his conduct; but he expresses no regret at what he had published concerning Marlowe. He knew neither of them, and had no desire to know Marlowe. From this single sentence we may collect the opinion that was entertained of Marlowe, even amongst people who were not repelled from associating with him by religious scruples, who were, like himself, playwrights and poets, and who held no communion with him, although they mixed constantly in the society with which he was intimately connected. Chettle was one of the inferior writers for the stage; a drudge in all sorts of literature; and no doubt passed his life in a perpetual struggle against poverty. Yet this comparatively obscure man, always distinguished by the modesty with which he speaks of himself, did not hesitate to publish to the world that he had no desire to be acquainted with Marlowe, who, whatever were the vices of his private life, enjoyed considerable reputation as a successful dramatist, and was the associate of Nash, one of Chettle's earliest friends. From this explanation we also gather that Greene had written worse of Marlowe than that he had spoken irreverently; but that Chettle had suppressed it, thinking it was written in displeasure, possibly because Marlowe had deserted him in his hour of need. How much worse it was may be inferred from Chettle's statement that, even if it had been true, and not written in displeasure,

*Kind-Hart's Dream. 1592.

he would still have suppressed it, because it was 'intolerable' to publish.

Marlowe's anxiety to vindicate his character satisfied itself in an explosion of anger. He made no public protest against the aspersion of impiety, nor did he take any pains otherwise to show that it was unfounded. Neither Greene's solemn warning, nor the contempt of Chettle, produced any effect upon his life. He continued from this time to pursue the same course which had hitherto drawn so much censure upon him, and which was destined within a few months to bring his career to a sudden and tragical close. In the following June he was killed by a man to whom he owed a grudge,' and who was said to have been his rival under circumstances discreditable to both. The man, whose name was Francis Archer,* appears to have acted in self-defence. According to the relations which are given of the story, Archer had asked Marlowe to a feast at Deptford, and while they were playing at backgammon, Marlowe suddenly drew out his dagger, and attempted to stab his host; when Archer, perceiving his intention, avoided the blow, and quickly seizing his own dagger, struck Marlowe in the eye, bringing away the brains as he withdrew the weapon. Medical aid was immediately procured, but it was unavailing. Marlowe died in a few hours. Of the issue, with reference to Archer, nothing is known.

Thus perished, at the untimely age of thirty, in a mean

* The burial register of the church of St. Nicholas, Deptford, contains the following entry :-Christopher Marlowe, slain by Francis Archer, the 16th June, 1593.' This record disposes of Vaughan's statement [The Golden Grove: 1600.] that the name of Marlowe's antagonist was Ingram; and of Aubrey's story that it was Ben Jonson who killed Mr. Marlowe, the poet, on Bunhill, coming from the Green Curtain play-house.' In Jonson's case, the circumstances were altogether different, the person he killed, Gabriel Spencer, an actor, having challenged him. The duel took place in Hoxton Fields, in September, 1598, five years after the death of Marlowe. See Life of Jonson, Ann. Ed., p. 10.

There are two or three versions of the catastrophe, differing in slight particulars, but agreeing upon the main.

brawl, the greatest dramatic poet in our language anterior to Shakspeare.

Amongst the papers Marlowe left behind him were the unfinished tragedy of Dido, afterwards completed for the stage by Nash, and the commencement of a paraphrase of the Greek poem of Hero and Leander, which Chapman brought to a conclusion. Independently of the plays Marlowe is known to have written, he is supposed to have been concerned in others, to some of which Shakspeare was largely indebted in the structure of three of his dramas.*

Marlowe laid the foundation of English dramatic poetry in blank verse, which he brought to its highest perfection. Ben Jonson's panegyric is familiar to all readers; but the 'mighty line' does not include the whole of Marlowe's merits. His versification is full of variety, and equally susceptible of the most

*1. The First Part of the Contention of the Houses of York and Lancaster. 2. The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York. 3. The Taming of the Shrew. Upon the former two Shakspeare founded the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI., and upon the last his play of the same name. There are so many extraordinary coincidences of expression between the old Taming of the Shrew and Marlowe's acknowledged writings, that Mr. Dyce thinks it could not have beer written by Marlowe himself, but must have been the work of an imitator. A writer in Notes and Queries opposes to this opinion the argument that the corresponding passages are so extensive and literal as to constitute, not imitations, but thefts, and that, if they are thefts, the thief would assuredly have availed himself of other writers, and not confined his depredations to Marlowe. 4. The Troublesome Reign of King John, in Two Parts. 5. Lust's Dominion. Mr. Dyce rejects this play from his edition of Marlowe's works, because there are certain allusions in the first scene which could not have been written till after Marlowe's death. By parity of reasoning he should have rejected Faustus, which he adopts. In the case of Lust's Dominion, as in that of Faustus, we have a right to assume that interpolations were introduced, from time to time, according to the custom of the theatres. The most direct evidence in favour of Marlowe's authorship of this play is, that the earliest edition bears his name on the title-page; a species of evidence we are not justified in ignoring on speculative grounds. 6. The Maiden's Holiday. A comedy bearing this name was entered in the Stationers' books on the 8th April, 1654, as the joint production of Marlowe and Day; but it was never printed, and the MS. was destroyed by Warburton's cook. It has been conjectured also that Marlowe was the author of Locrine and Titus Andronicus, and of some play, apparently alluded to by Greene, see ante, p. 144, in which there was a priest of the sun. But there is no evidence in support of these conjectures.

luscious sweetness and the utmost force. The rhythm always obeys the emotion, and its melody is not to be tested by a mechanical standard. The sense is not adapted to the numbers, but the numbers to the sense; and, the meaning being clearly understood, the verse becomes a strain of music. His diction is rich and nervous; his imagery profuse, and frequently drawn from recondite sources. As he is often extravagant, so he is sometimes flat and prosaic; and, considering the height to which he occasionally soars above his immediate contemporaries, he may be pronounced the most unequal of them all. But it should be recollected that the dramatist of that day addressed only one tribunal. His object was to produce a play that would act well, not one that would read well. The fear of print was not before his eyes, and he was careless in proportion of those conditions of finish and completeness which are demanded by the criticism of the closet.

The comic scenes which interleave Marlowe's plays are coarse, heavy, and generally gross. But he had a quality of humour of a singular kind, which appears when it is least expected in situations of grief or terror. We have a remarkable example of this in the Jew of Malta, where Friar Jacomo, seeing the dead body of Friar Barnardine standing against a wall with a staff in its hands, addresses it, and, not receiving any answer, knocks it down, upon which he is accused of the murder, a tragical issue produced by farcical means, and showing how closely tragedy and farce lie together.

Marlowe's strength was not that of intensity in the sense of concentration; it consisted in the power of accumulation which conquers by repeated blows. His details are often hyperbolical, and his characters, divorced from the action and the surrounding figures, are little better than superb exaggerations of humanity. His plays will not bear this kind of dissection; they must be grasped as a whole in the entirety of their burning passion and Titanic energies. The design is always vast, and commands attention by its breadth and boldness. There is a barbaric grandeur in Tamburlaine, which seizes forcibly on the imagination, in spite of the means by which it is brought about. It is preposterous enough to