The mere fact that it is possible to differ as to the real nature of some of Shakespeare’s characters is a tribute to their reality. We are never in the least doubt as to the meaning of the heroes of Corneille or Racine, or the _galanes_, _damas_, and jealous husbands of Lope and Calderon. In them we have certain qualities, certain manifestations of character, selected and kept so well before us that they explain themselves, as a Spaniard might say, a crossbow-shot off. Even Molière, who comes nearest to Shakespeare, is simple and transparent, because he also is, in comparison, narrow and arbitrary. We may differ as to his purpose in writing _Don Juan_ or _Tartuffe_. Was he only drawing infidelity and hypocrisy to make them hateful? Was he speaking for the _libertins_ of the seventeenth century, the forerunners of the philosophy of the eighteenth, who were in revolt against the claim of religion to be a guide of life and to control conduct? But the personages explain themselves. Again, when we meet one of those sudden, unexplained, or insufficiently explained alterations of the whole nature of a man or woman, so common with the other Elizabethan dramatists, and not very rare with the Spaniards, we know it to be false to life, and put it down at once as a clumsy playwright’s device. But the characters of Shakespeare are like the great figures of history, real, and yet not always to be understood at once, because they have the variety, the complexity, and the mystery of nature. The men who grew up around Shakespeare in the last years of the sixteenth century, and who outlived him, do not belong to our subject. It is enough to point out how unlikely it was that they would continue him. Ben Jonson, who was by far the strongest of them, tacitly confessed that there could be no Shakespearian drama without Shakespeare, when he deliberately sacrificed character to the convenient simplicity of the “humour,” and looked for the structural coherence of his plays to the unities. Other men who were less wise preferred to keep the freedom which they had not the strength to bear. FOOTNOTES: [70] Dodsley’s _Old Plays_. Edited by W. Carew Hazlitt. Vol. iii. [71] Dodsley’s _Old Plays_. Edited by W. Carew Hazlitt. Vol. iii. [72] Dodsley’s _Old Plays_, 1825. [73] _Dramatic Works of John Lyly._ Edited by F. W. Fairholt, 1858. [74] _Dramatic Works of Robert Greene._ Dyce, 1883. [75] _Dramatic Works of George Peele._ Dyce, 1883. [76] _Works of Christopher Marlowe._ Dyce, 1865. CHAPTER IX. THE ELIZABETHAN PROSE-WRITERS. ELIZABETHAN PROSE--TWO SCHOOLS OF WRITERS--ROGER ASCHAM--HIS BOOKS AND STYLE--WEBBE AND PUTTENHAM--THE SENTENCE--EUPHUISM--THE ‘ARCADIA’--SIDNEY’S STYLE--SHORT STORIES--NASH’S ‘UNFORTUNATE TRAVELLER’--NASH AND THE PAMPHLETEERS--MARTIN MARPRELATE--ORIGIN OF THE MARPRELATE TRACTS--THE ‘DIOTREPHES’--COURSE OF THE CONTROVERSY--ITS PLACE IN LITERARY HISTORY--HOOKER--‘THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY.’ [SN: _Elizabethan prose._]