Shakspere, and died in 1593. Shakspere was sharer in a theatre in 1589, for which Marlowe and the other dramatists of the age wrote. It is supposed by some that Shakspere is mentioned by Greene, as writing at that time in conjunction with them. It is therefore probable that as an actor, dramatist, and proprietor, both for purposes of business, pleasure, and instruction, Shakspere frequented the society of Marlowe and his friends. There is reason to think that his first manner, his early style, and young impressions, were received from Marlowe. There was his school, and Marlowe was his

master.

There are few if any personal notices of others to be met with in Shakspere so certain as the reference to Marlowe. The rare exception he has made in introducing the mention of him in his works, speaks much as to his regard for Marlowe's memory. The way in which he mentions him and his 'mighty line'

Dead shepherd! now I find thy saw of might,
"Whoever loved, that loved not at first sight?'

we think an additional tribute of esteem; quoting what he said as true, mighty, and engraven in his recollection. The expression, Dead shepherd,' looks as though the leader of the flock was pointed to-it is the language of a poetical pupil to his mentor. Seldom, if ever, does Shakspere quote any other contemporary, or give any authority, which makes this compliment to the spirit of the dead of greater worth. So close has this connection between the two poets been considered, that the celebrated sonnet of Marlowe,' Come, be my love,' was long attributed to Shakspere. One of Shakspere's plays, on the other hand, has been attributed to Marlowe. That when Shakspere first began to write he should be indebted to Marlowe shows congeniality of sentiment between them. This is verified by the accusation of Greene, that he did take from Marlowe. The memory of the predecessor goes down to posterity as identified with the memory of the successor. The same cannot be well said of any other

than Marlowe.

It is probable that the other contemporaries of Marlowe shared his opinions. Collier produces the fact of Marlowe

having been a propagandist. Greene confessed to have held the same opinions; and, in his exhortation to Marlowe to abandon them, referred to a teacher amongst them who died miserably, supposed to be Kett, a Fellow of Bennet College, Cambridge, who was burnt at Norwich for Atheism, in 1589. They were followers of Lucretius and Epicurus in philosophy, and they were Epicureans, unfortunately, in the modern sense of the word. They all died early from the effects of dissipation. Greene was taken ill, and died a month after a drunken feast with his friend Nash. The occasion of his death, and the duration of his illness, exactly coincide with the tradition which says that Shakspere died a month after drinking immoderately with Jonson. They were nearly all University men, and Shakspere may have derived much of his learning, philosophy and idiosyncracies, from his acquaintance with them.

Shakspere became known to the Stage when there was a fierce contention between the rhyming dramatists and the writers of blank verse. Marlowe was of the new school, and Shakspere followed him; for which they both obtained. much obloquy. It has been remarked, by Leigh Hunt and Barry Cornwall, that there are evidences of the imitation of Marlowe in Shakspere's works. His style throughout is more conformable to Marlowe's than to Beaumont's Fletcher's, Jonson's, or Massinger's. This, doubtless, arose from the force of association with Marlowe in his early days. From the accusation that Marlowe indulged too much in the portraiture of lust, villany, and ferocity, Shakspere is not exempt. There are instances of it in other plays besides Titus Andronicus. Shakspere treated religion with less respect even than Marlowe. He introduced obscenity, and went beyond him in profanity.

We know very little of the personal history of Beaumont and Fletcher. Chalmers' Biographical Dictionary says of Beaumont, How his life was spent, and how his mind was occupied, his works show his short span cannot be supposed to have been diversified by any other events than those that are incident to candidates for theatrical fame and profit.' These observations may be received as generally applicable to the lives of all the dramatists. Of Fletcher, it

has been remarked, that it would not have been supposed he was the son of a bishop.' Jonson, thrown into prison for killing a man in a duel, said that he took his religion on trust from a Roman Catholic priest, who was in confinement with him, in which persuasion he remained for fourteen years. At the end of this time, it is not likely that a man of such easy faith would be troubled to distinguish for himself a creed; and, unless some new companion obliged him with one, (of which he has left us no notice) it is probable that he spent the remainder of his days religionless. A bishop who visited him in his dying days, relates that he found him-'twixt wine and women, but that Jonson assured him he was sorry for the profanity of his works, especially for having ridiculed the Scriptures-a sorrow that all who have examined the writings of Jonson and Shakspere, will allow to be becoming in a greater degree, in the mouth of the latter dramatist.

Massinger did not begin to write till Shakspere had retired from the Stage. Gifford, the editor of his works, says, though we are ignorant of every circumstance respecting Massinger, unless that he lived, wrote, and died, we may yet form to ourselves some idea of his personal character from the incidental hints scattered through his works.' Thus we have the dictum of this great critic, that a writer's character and opinions may be drawn from his plays; and he himself infers the religious sentiments of Massinger from comparison with the other dramatists. He observes that, 'The great distinction of Massinger, is the uniform respect with which he treats religion and its ministers, in an age when it was found necessary to add regulation to regulation to stop the growth of impiety on the stage. No priests are introduced by him, "to set on some quantity of barren spectators" to laugh at their licentious follies; the sacred name is not lightly invoked, nor daringly sported with; nor is Scripture profaned by buffoon allusions lavishly, put into the mouths of fools and women.' In Shakspere the uniformity is the other way.

Gifford, in these remarks, evidently had Shakspere in view. As he only excepts Massinger for his religious propriety, among the dramatists of that age, we have the authority of a critic, best able to know it, that at least Shakspere

was among those who indulged in reprehensible licences. But we will here extract from another writer, (the author of the life of Shakspere in Lardner's Cyclopædia) as to the irreligion of Shakspere. The cyclopædiast says, We may add, that his (Shakspere's) allusions in other respects, are in the highest degree censurable. As a late admirable writer (Gifford) has said of him, he "is in truth, the Coryphæus of profanation." Texts of Scripture are adduced by him with the most wanton levity; and, like his own Hal, he has led to "damnable iteration." As Ben Jonson, so we hope Shakspear, repented of his profaneness; though assuredly, in the latter case, no record of repentance is to be found on earth.' Gifford and Johnson are both eminent critics, and they both have expressed themselves most decidedly in reference to the irreligion of Shakspere. Their condemnation may be set in opposition to our motto from Mr. Knight, who has argued the opposite way.

Other critics have collected notices of Raleigh, and what they think friendly allusions to him and his position, in the plays of Shakspere. Whatever his life and works may testify, it was a current opinion of his age that Raleigh was an Atheist. Chalmers' Bio. Dict. art. Raleigh: says, In 1593 he was charged with Atheism in a pamphlet by the Jesuit Parsons, who speaks of his School of Atheism, of which he was not content to be a disciple, but was a doctor. Anthony Wood not only adopts this opinion of his principles, but tells us from whom he derived them. Shakspere is known to have had private and personal intercourse with Raleigh. Raleigh was at the head of a club at the Mermaid, where Jonson and Shakspere were the most distinguished members. 'There,' says Fletcher, they drank "full wine.” '

It is just possible that Shakspere in early life knew Bacon. The versatile Chancellor must have been once theatrical, as in the winter of 1586-7, he was concerned in getting up and writing parts of a new play which was acted before the Queen by the members of the Temple. It is highly probable that Shakspere was acquainted with his works, or the spirit of his investigations, as there is evidence in Shakspere of some coincidence with them. Much of Bacon's Essays are said to be taken from Montaigne, whose writings were

well known to, if not much used by, Shakspere. The design of both Montaigne and Bacon seems to be, to find out what may be said on each side of the question of religion. This style of writing is too much in the fashion of the schoolmen, who would argue on any hypothesis, for or against, and was probably adopted by Montaigne and Bacon as a just medium; as eclectic in philosophy, and as avoiding the imputation of holding any opinions, heretical in themselves, or obnoxious to others. Bacon has taken care to balance his sentiments, whilst those of Shakspere seem nearly all placed in one, so as greatly to outweigh the other scale. Bacon, as well as Montaigne, was at least aware that his Essays would be thought by some prejudicial to religion; as he says, in his prefatory epistle to his brother, I find nothing, to my understanding, in them contrary or infectious to the state in religion or manners, but rather, as I suppose, medicinable.' Bacon gave a first edition of his Essays in 1597, another in 1612. Though published after many of the plays of Shakspere, they evince the spirit of the age amongst literary men contemporary with Shakspere. In his third Essay, 'of unity in religion,' Bacon says of the religion of the heathens, you may imagine what kind of faith theirs was, when the chief doctors and fathers of their church were the poets.' An idea which Shakspere seems to have had, in the speech of Theseus in the Midsummer Night's Dream, where he puts into the mouth of that hero of ancient Athens, that the religious, the lunatic and the poet, are of imagination all compact. Agreeing further with Shakspere, he says, 'the differences in religion make the religious to be thought mad, and the Atheists and profane to sit down in the chair of the scorner.'

6

It seems, according to Bacon, that Atheists were then very rampant, for he says that they were ever talking of their opinions; that they strove to get disciples, and, most of all, would suffer for Atheism rather than recant. He must have been thinking of Kett, Marlowe, and the dramatists, or Raleigh and his school, as we know of no other Atheists in those times, or of any others who had Atheism ascribed to them in England. Bruno, who had been in England, under the patronage of Sir Philip Sydney, was burnt abroad.