many faults in a verse, it maketh wordes longer, shorter, of mo sillables, of fewer, newer, older, truer, falser, and to conclude it turkeneth all things at pleasure, for example, ydone for done, adowne for downe, orecome for ouercome, tane for taken, power for powre, heauen for heavn, thewes for good partes or good qualities, and a numbre of other whiche were but tedious and needelesse to rehearse, since your owne iudgement and readyng will soone make you espie such aduauntages.

14. . . . And the commonest sort of verse which we use now adayes (viz. the long verse of twelve and fourtene sillables) I know not certainly how to name it, unlesse I should say that it doth consist of Poulters measure, which giveth xii for one dozen and xiiii for another. . . .

16. I had forgotten a notable kinde of ryme, called ryding rime, and that is suche as our Mayster and Father Chaucer vsed in his Canterburie tales, and in diuers other delectable and light enterprises: but though it come to my remembrance somewhat out of order, it shall not yet come altogether out of time, for I will nowe tell you a conceipt whiche I had before forgotten to wryte: you may see (by the way) that I holde a preposterous order in my traditions, but as I sayde before I wryte moued by good wil, and not to shewe my skill. Then to returne too my matter, as this riding rime serueth most aptly to wryte a merie tale, so Rythme royall is fittest for a graue discourse. Ballades are beste of matters of loue, and rondlettes moste apt for the beating or handlyng of an adage or common prouerbe: Sonets serue aswell in matters of loue as of discourse: Dizaymes and Sixames for shorte Fantazies: Verlayes for an effectual proposition, although by the name you might otherwise iudge of Verlayes, and the long verse of twelue and fouretene sillables, although it be now adayes vsed in all Theames, yet in my iudgement it would serue best for Psalmes and Himpnes.

These extracts will suffice to show the spirit in which this little treatise is written. It is, in my belief, a juvenile effort, and the spirit which animates it is the same ambitious, zealous and patriotic spirit as inspires the letter of "G. T." and subsequently those of "Immerito" and other similar treatises. This little work is of exceptional interest as showing (if my view is right) at what an early age the author of it began the exercise of his art, and what an extraordinary grasp he had of the details as well as the principles of it. It is, in my opinion, the first of a series in which identity of authorship seems to me self

evident, though the works appeared under different names, viz.—

A Discourse of English Poetrie, by William Webbe, Graduate, 1586.

The Arte of English Poesie, published anonymously, and reputed (though on most inadequate authority) to be by one George Puttenham, 1589.

An Apologie for Poetrie, by Sir Philip Sidney, 1595.

A Defence of Ryme, by “Sa. D.” (Samuel Daniel), 1603.

In addition to the works which I have discussed (and the two plays translated from Ariosto and Euripides, Supposes and Jocasta, which belong to 1566) the works of Gascoigne comprise a series of pieces, in verse and prose, beginning with a play in prose entitled The Glasse of Governement, dated 26th April 1575, and ending with a series of four poems entitled The Grief of Joye, which were dedicated to Queen Elizabeth on 1st January 1577Gascoigne died in October of that year.

To prove that these works are not all by Gascoigne is perhaps a long and difficult task, but the conclusion is of such crucial importance to my argument, and so much more flows from it, that I must ask the reader's indulgence while I attempt it. In brief, my contention will be that out of eleven pieces five only are by Gascoigne, and the other six are by Francis Bacon. The following is the list, in order of time, with the dates of the dedications, which should be specially noted.

*1576. (Short piece, undated) In commendation of the noble

Only those marked * are, in my opinion, by Gascoigne.

The Glasse of Governement.-This is a very immature production, and I regard it as Bacon's first effort, or first surviving effort, in the art of play-writing. In it are found,

It is

in embryo, the characteristic ideas of his manhood. referred to by Professor Courthope as "of mortal dulness," a fair description if it was the work of a man of fifty; but if, as I believe, it was written by a boy of fourteen, or perhaps younger, it is a piece of extraordinary psychological interest. The play deals with Bacon's favourite subject, education, and in nothing is the juvenility of it shown so much as in the perfect confidence with which the author promotes the studious young men and brings the idle ones to a disastrous end, the moral being pointed with an infallible sententiousness. The writer knows little of the world but what he has heard or has gleaned out of books. Of this knowledge he makes the very most, and the play is not altogether deficient in variety and interest. The most interesting feature of it, however, is the endeavour to graft the teachings of pagan philosophy and art on to the stock of Christian doctrine, as held by

the reformers, and to unite the two for the purposes of instruction through the medium of the stage. The play

is a "school play," on the model of the Terentian drama, which was then much in vogue in the new grammar schools founded in the Tudor period under the influence of such men as Ascham and Cheke, and at the universities. It is described as "A tragicall Comedie, so entituled by cause therein are handled as well the rewardes for Vertues as also the punishment for Vices," and is stated (though I do not believe it) to be "Done by George Gascoigne Esquier."

In the Latin names, and the Latin enumeration of the Acts and Scenes, the play follows the classical tradition. One English name, "Dicke Drumme," is used for a low character. There are two grave parents, Phylopaes and Phylocalus, who each have two sons, of whom the elder, Phylautus and Phylosarchus (Self-love and Love of power), come to grief, and the younger, Phylomusus and Phylotimus (Love of learning and Love of honour), win distinction. These, in my opinion, are originals of many other similar characters which are to be found in Bacon's didactic works, by which I mean such works as Euphues, the Arcadia, and the Devices, where "character" is sacrificed to the purpose of direct instruction, and the persons introduced are made the vehicles for discourse on every variety of subject.

I hold very strongly that all imaginative work has "self" for its basis, that the artist finds his art not so much in the world (which is ancillary) as in his own soul, and that his work therefore is necessarily "autobiographical." The difference in this respect between Gascoigne and Shakespeare, or, to take a modern illustration, between Burns and Dickens, or Burns and Scott, is one of appearance only, and lies in the power of "feigning." That power largely depends on range of experience and reading, and on memory, "the mother of the muses.' " 1 The range of Gascoigne is extremely limited, and he is frankly autobiographical. The same 1 Aeschylus, Prom. Vinct. 469.

is true of Burns, and is the condition of the directness of his appeal. But the wider the author's range, the greater are the resources of self-expression at his command, and imaginative writers like Scott and Dickens take advantage of this power to shield themselves from too curious identification. Yet it is well known and fully authenticated that, under various disguises, those two writers gave expression to their own feelings and experiences. This is surely a law of life, and must be true, in varying degrees, of every writer of fiction, of every poet, painter, musician, or artist in any medium whatsoever. Shakespeare is supposed to be an exception, a man whose writings had no relation to his circumstances, an artist, so to speak, bombinans in vacuo. In my belief there is here no exception; Shakespeare is just as autobiographical as Gascoigne. The difference lies in the immensity of his range and the vastness of his resources. In a greater or less degree he is in all his characters, but he is identified with none. He had also every reason for concealing his identity, which was not the case with Gascoigne.

In the little play which we are discussing the "autobiographical" element is very evident. The work, like everything else which this author wrote, is the natural outcome of his experience, reading and reflection at the time. The characters, though lightly drawn, and largely used as vehicles for sermons, are nevertheless individualised to a considerable extent. The two fathers represent the patria potestas of the time. The four sons are an expression of the author's "self" under several aspects, a dispersal of personality which is a special characteristic of this writer, and the one by which he most eludes identification. One of them, however, Philomusus, rather than the others, expresses his more intimate self (as does Biron, for instance, in Love's Labours Lost). In the treatment of the two elder and the two younger brothers we see the germs of that conflict, which is so strongly in evidence in the later writings, between "will" and "wit," the flesh and the spirit, ambition and conscience; and in the defence of ambition in the two younger brothers there