Читать книгу Notes and Queries, Number 22, March 30, 1850 - Various - Страница 1

In two former communications on a subject incidental to that to which I now beg leave to call your attention, I hinted at a result far more important than the discovery of the author of the Taming of a Shrew. That result I lay before your readers, in stating that I think I can show grounds for the assertion that the Taming of the Shrew, by Shakspeare, is the original play; and that the Taming of a Shrew, by Marlowe or what other writer soever, is a later work, and an imitation. I must first, however, state, that having seen Mr. Dyce's edition of Marlowe, I find that this writer's claim to the latter work had already been advanced by an American gentleman, in a work so obvious for reference as Knight's Library Edition of Shakspeare. I was pretty well acquainted with the contents of Mr. Knight's first edition; and knowing that the subsequent work of Mr. Collier contained nothing bearing upon the point, I did not think of referring to an edition published, as I understood, rather for the variation of form than on account of the accumulation of new matter. Mr. Dyce appears to consider the passages cited as instances of imitation, and not proofs of the identity of the writer. His opinion is certainly entitled to great respect: yet it may, nevertheless, be remarked, first that the instance given, supposing Marlowe not to be the author, would be cases of theft rather than imitation, and which, done on so large a scale, would scarcely be confined to the works of one writer; and, secondly, that in original passages there are instances of an independence and vigour of thought equal to the best things that Marlowe ever wrote—a circumstance not to be reconciled with the former supposition. The following passage exhibits a freedom of thought more characteristic of this writer's reputation than are most of his known works:—

A short account of the process by which I came to a conclusion which, if established, must overthrow so many ingenious theories, will not, I trust, be uninteresting to your readers. In the relationship between these two plays there always seemed to be something which needed explanation. It was the only instance among the works of Shakspeare in which a direct copy, even to matters of detail, appeared to have been made; and, in spite of all attempts to gloss over and palliate, it was impossible to deny that an unblushing act of mere piracy seemed to have been committed, of which I never could bring myself to believe that Shakspeare had been guilty. The readiness to impute this act to him was to me but an instance of the unworthy manner in which he had almost universally been treated; and, without at the time having any suspicion of what I now take to be the fact, I determined, if possible, to find it out. The first question I put to myself was, Had Shakspeare himself any concern in the older play? A second glance at the work sufficed for an answer in the negative. I next asked myself on what authority we called it an "older" play. The answer I found myself obliged to give was, greatly to my own surprise, On no authority whatever! But there was still a difficulty in conceiving how, with Shakspeare's work before him, so unscrupulous an imitator should have made so poor an imitation. I should not have felt this difficulty had I then recollected that the play in question was not published; but, as the case stood, I carefully examined the two plays together, especially those passages which were identical, or nearly so, in both, and noted, in these cases, the minutest variations. The result was, that I satisfied myself that the original conception was invariably to be found in Shakspeare's play. I have confirmed this result in a variety of ways, which your space will not allow me to enter upon; therefore, reserving such circumstances for the present as require to be enforced by argument, I will content myself with pointing out certain passages that bear out my view. I must first, however, remind your readers that while some plays, from their worthlessness, were never printed, some were withheld from the press on account of their very value; and of this latter class were the works of Shakspeare. The late publication of his works created the impression, not yet quite worn out, of his being a later writer than many of his contemporaries, solely because their printed works are dated earlier by twenty or thirty years. But for the obstinate effects of this impression, it is difficult to conceive how any one could miss the original invention of Shakspeare in the induction, and such scenes as that between Grumio and the tailor; the humour of which shines, even in the feeble reflection of the imitation, in striking contrast with those comic(?) scenes which are the undisputed invention of the author of the Taming of a Shrew.

The first passage I take is from Act IV. Sc. 3.

"Grumio. Thou hast fac'd many things?

"Tailor. I have.

"Gru. Face not me: thou hast brav'd many men; brave not me. I will neither be fac'd nor brav'd."

In this passage there is a play upon the terms "fac'd" and "brav'd." In the tailor's sense, "things" may be "fac'd" and "men" may be "brav'd;" and, by means of this play, the tailor is entrapped into an answer. The imitator, having probably seen the play represented, has carried away the words, but by transposing them, and with the change of one expression—"men" for "things"—has lost the spirit: there is a pun no longer. He might have played upon "brav'd," but there he does not wait for the tailor's answer; and "fac'd," as he has it, can be understood but in one sense, and the tailor's admission becomes meaningless. The passage is as follows:—

"Saudre. Dost thou hear, tailor? thou hast brav'd many men; brave not me. Th'ast fac'd many men.

"Tailor. Well, Sir?

"Saudre. Face not me; I'll neither be fac'd nor brav'd at thy hands, I can tell thee."—p. 198.

A little before, in the same scene, Grumio says, "Master, if ever I said loose-bodied gown, sew me in the skirts of it, and beat me to death with a bottom of brown thread." I am almost tempted to ask if passages such as this be not evidence sufficient. In the Taming of a Shrew, with the variation of "sew me in a seam" for "sew me in the skirts of it," the passage is also to be found; but who can doubt the whole of this scene to be by Shakspeare, rather than by the author of such scenes, intended to be comic, as one referred to in my last communication (No. 15. p. 227., numbered 7.), and shown to be identical with one in Doctor Faustus? I will just remark, too, that the best appreciation of the spirit of the passage, which, one would think, should point out the author, is shown in the expression, "sew me in the skirts of it," which has meaning, whereas the variation has none. A little earlier, still in the same scene, the following bit of dialogue occurs:—

"Pet. When you are gentle, you shall have one too, and not till then."

Katharine's use of the term "gentlewomen" suggests here Petruchio's "gentle." In the other play the reply is evidently imitated, but with the absence of the suggestive cue:—

"For I will home again unto my father's house.

"Ferando. I, when y'are meeke and gentle, but not before."—p. 194.

Petruchio, having dispatched the tailor and haberbasher, proceeds—

throughout continuing to urge the vanity of outward appearance, in reference to the "ruffs and cuffs, and farthingales and things," which he had promised her, and with which the phrase "honest mean habiliments" is used in contrast. The sufficiency to the mind of these,

is the very pith and purpose of the speech. Commencing in nearly the same words, the imitator entirely mistakes this, in stating the object of clothing to be to "shrowd us from the winter's rage;" which is, nevertheless, true enough, though completely beside the purpose. In Act II. Sc. 1., Petruchio says,—

Here is perfect consistency: the clearness of the "morning roses," arising from their being "wash'd with dew;" at all events, the quality being heightened by the circumstance. In a passage of the so-called "older" play, the duke is addressed by Kate as "fair, lovely lady," &c.

As the morning does not derive its glory from the circumstance of its being "wash'd with dew," and as it is not a peculiarly apposite comparison, I conclude that here, too, as in other instances, the sound alone has caught the ear of the imitator.

In Act V. Sc. 2., Katharine says,—

Though Shakspeare was, in general, a most correct and careful writer, that he sometimes wrote hastily it would be vain to deny. In the third line of the foregoing extract, the meaning clearly is, "as which token of duty;" and it is the performance of this "token of duty" which Katharine hopes may "do him ease." The imitator, as usual, has caught something of the words of the original which he has laboured to reproduce at a most unusual sacrifice of grammar and sense; the following passage appearing to represent that the wives, by laying their hands under their husbands' feet—no reference being made to the act as a token of duty—in some unexplained manner, "might procure them ease."

One more instance, and I have done. Shakspeare has imparted a dashing humorous character to this play, exemplified, among other peculiarities, by such rhyming of following words as—

"Haply to wive and thrive as least I may."

"We will have rings and things and fine array."

"With ruffs, and cuffs, and farthingales and things."

I quote these to show that the habit was Shakspeare's. In Act I. Sc. 1. occurs the passage—"that would thoroughly woo her, wed her, and bed her, and rid the house of her." The sequence here is perfectly natural: but observe the change: in Ferando's first interview with Kate, he says,—

In the last scene, Petruchio says,—

Ferando has it thus:—

Is it not evident that Shakespeare chose the word "sped" as a rhyme to "bed," and that the imitator, in endeavouring to recollect the jingle, has not only spoiled the rhyme, but missed the fact that all "three" were "married," notwithstanding that "two" were "sped"?

It is not in the nature of such things that instances should be either numerous or very glaring; but it will be perceived that in all of the foregoing, the purpose, and sometimes even the meaning, is intelligible only in the form in which we find it in Shakespeare. I have not urged all that I might, even in this branch of the question; but respect for your space makes me pause. In conclusion, I will merely state, that I have no doubt myself of the author of the Taming of a Shrew having been Marlowe; and that, if in some scenes it appear to fall short of what we might have expected from such a writer, such inferiority arises from the fact of its being an imitation, and probably required at a short notice. At the same time, though I do not believe Shakspeare's play to contain a line of any other writer, I think it extremely probable that we have it only in a revised form, and that, consequently, the play which Marlow imitated might not necessarily have been that fund of life and humour that we find it now.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

St. John's Wood, March 19. 1850.