Notes and Queries, Number 53, November 2, 1850
Various
Various
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[1 - This communication was written and in our hands before the appearance of Mr. Halliwell's advertisement and letter to The Times, announcing that the edition of Shakspeare advertised as to be edited by him and published by the Messrs. Tallis, is only a reprint of an edition, with Notes and Introductions by Mr. Halliwell, which was commenced at New York some months ago.—ED.], 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?" T