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:--
"And custom-free, you marchants shall commerce
And interchange the profits of your land,
Sending you gold for brasse, silver for lead,
Casses of silke for packes of wol and cloth,
To bind this friendship and confirme this league."
_Six Old Plays_, p. 204.
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, {346} 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:--
"_Kath._ I'll have no bigger; this doth fit the time,
And gentlewomen wear such caps as these.
"_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.