p>Notes and Queries, Number 53, November 2, 1850
NOTES
SHAKSPEARE AND MARLOWE
A special use of, a use, indeed, that gives a special value to your publication, is the communication through its means of facts and conclusions for the information or assistance of editors or intending editors. I do not suppose that any gentleman occupying this position would be guilty of so much disrespect to the many eminent names which have already appeared in your columns, as would be implied in not giving all the attention it deserved to any communication you might see fit to publish; and with this feeling, and under this shelter, I return to the subject of Marlowe, and his position as a dramatic writer relative to Shakspeare. I perceive that a re-issue of Mr. Knight's Shakspeare has commenced, and from the terms of the announcement, independently of other considerations, I conclude that the editor will take advantage of this opportunity of referring to doubtful or disputed points that may have made any advance towards a solution since his previous editions. I have read also an advertisement of an edition of Shakspeare, to be superintended by Mr. Halliwell*, which is to contain the plays of "doubtful authenticity, or in the composition of which Shakspeare is supposed only to have taken a part." Neither of these gentlemen can well avoid expressing an opinion on the subject I have adverted to, and to them more especially I would address my observations.
I think I have observed that the claims of Marlowe have been maintained with something very like party spirit. I have seen latterly several indications of this, unmistakeable, though expressed, perhaps, but by a single word. Now it is true both Mr. Collier and Mr. Dyce are committed to a positive opinion on this subject; and it would be unreasonable to expect either of those gentlemen to change their views, except with the fullest proof and after the maturest consideration. But who, besides these, is interested in maintaining the precedence of Marlowe? These remarks have been called forth by an article in the Athenæum, containing the following passages:—
"All Marlowe's works were produced prior, we may safely assert, to the appearance of Shakspeare as a writer for the stage, or as an author, in print.
"It is now universally admitted among competent critics, that Shakspeare commenced his career as a dramatic author, by remodelling certain pieces written either separately or conjointly by Greene, Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele."
An anonymous writer commits himself to nothing, and I should not have noticed the above but that they illustrate my position. In the passage first cited, if the writer mean "as a writer for the stage in print," it proves nothing; but if the words "in print" are not intended to be so connected, the assertion cannot be proved, and many "competent critics" will tell him it is most improbable. The assertion of the second quotation is simply untrue; Mr. Knight 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 false conclusion that has been drawn, to weaken its impression, and to reduce it to its true value; and that I have endeavoured to do in the present paper. In conclusion, I take the opportunity of saying, as the circumstance in some degree bears upon the present question, that the evidence in support of the priority of Shakspeare's Taming of the Shrew to the so-called older play which I withheld, together with what I have collected since my last paper on the subject, is I think stronger even than that which I communicated.
October, 1850.
A PLAN FOR A CHURCH-HISTORY SOCIETY
The formation of a Society, having for its object any special literary service, is a matter so closely connected with the very purpose for which this paper was established, that we shall only be carrying out that purpose by calling the attention of our readers to a small pamphlet in which our valued correspondent DR. MAITLAND offers a few suggestions to all who may be interested in the formation of a "CHURCH-HISTORY SOCIETY, and willing to co-operate in such a design."
DR. MAITLAND'S suggestions are:
1. The collection of a library containing the books particularly required for the objects of the proposed society: