Notes and Queries, Number 53, November 2, 1850 | Page 2

has not admitted what is stated therein, and if I recollect right, an Edinburgh Reviewer has concurred with him in judgment. Neither of these, I presume, will be called incompetent. I cannot suppose that either assertion would have been made but for the spirit to which I have alluded; for no cause was ever the better for allegations that could not be maintained.
In some former papers which you did me the honour to publish, I gave it incidentally as my opinion that Marlowe was the author of the Taming of a Shrew. I have since learned, through Mr. Halliwell, that Mr. Dyce is confident, from the style, that he was not. Had I the opportunity, I might ask Mr. Dyce "which style?" That of the passages I cited as being identical with passages in Marlowe's acknowledged plays will not, I presume, be disputed; and of that of such scenes as the one between Sander and the tailor, I am as confident as Mr. Dyce; it is the style rather of Shakspeare than Marlowe. In other respects, I learn that the kind of evidence that is considered by Mr. Dyce good to sustain the claim of Marlowe to the authorship of the Contention and the _True Tragedy_, is not admissible in support of his claim to the Taming of a Shrew. I shall take another opportunity of showing that the very passages cited by Mr. Dyce from the two first-named of these plays will support my view of the case, at least as well as his; doing no more now than simply recording an opinion that Marlowe was a follower and imitator of Shakspeare. I do not know that I am at present in a position to maintain this opinion by argument; but I can, at all events, show on what exceedingly slight grounds the contrary opinion has been founded.
I have already called attention to the fact, that the impression of Marlowe's being an earlier writer than Shakspeare, was founded solely upon the circumstance that his plays were printed at an earlier date. That nothing could be more fallacious than this conclusion, the fact that many of Shakspeare's earliest plays were not printed at all until after his death is sufficient to evince. The motive for withholding Shakspeare's plays from the press is as easily understood as that for publishing Marlowe's. Thus stood the question when Mr. Collier approached the subject. Meanwhile it should be borne in mind, that not a syllable of evidence has been advanced to show that Shakspeare could not have written the First part of the Contention and the _True Tragedy_, if not the later forms of _Henry VI._, Hamlet and Pericles in their earliest forms, if not _Timon of Athens_, which I think is also an early play revised, _Love's Labour's Lost_, _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, &c., all of which I should place at least seven years distance from plays which I think were acted about 1594 or 1595. I now proceed to give the kernel of Mr. Collier's argument, omitting nothing that is really important to the question:--
"'Give me the man' (says Nash) 'whose extemporal vein, in any humour, will excel our greatest _art masters_' deliberate thoughts.'
"Green, in 1588, says he had been 'had in derision' by 'two gentlemen poets' because I could not make my verses get on the stage in tragical buskins, every word filling the mouth like the faburden of Bow-bell, daring God out of heaven with that atheist tamburlane, or blaspheming with the mad priest of the sun. Farther on he laughs at the 'prophetical spirits' of those 'who set the end of scholarism in an _English blank-verse_.'
"Marlowe took his degree of Master of Arts in the very year when Nash was unable to do so, &c.
"I thus arrive at the conclusion, that Christopher Marlowe was our first poet who used blank-verse in dramatic compositions performed in public theatres."--_Hist. of Dramatic Poetry_, vol. iii. pp. 110, 111, 112.
This is literally all; and, I ask, can any "conclusion" be much more inconclusive? Yet Mr. Collier has been so far misled by the deference paid to him on the strength of his unquestionably great services, and appears to have been so fully persuaded of the correctness of his deduction, that he has since referred to as a proved fact what is really nothing more than an exceedingly loose conjecture.
Of the two editors whose names I have mentioned, Mr. Knight's hitherto expressed opinions in reference to the early stage of Shakspeare's career in a great measure coincide with mine; and I have no reason to suppose that it is otherwise than an open question to Mr. Halliwell. For satisfactory proof in support of my position, time only, I firmly believe, is required; but the first stage in every case is to remove the