(1) "Now that the gloomy shadow of the night," &c.
--_Faustus_, vol. ii. p.127.
(2) "Zenocrate, the loveliest maid alive," &c.
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.46.
(3) "Whose darts do pierce the centre of my soul," &c.
--_Tamb._ vol. i. p.120.
"Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships," &c.
--_Faustus_, vol. ii. p.192.
(4) "Now bright Zenocrate, the world's fair eye," &c.
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.102
"Batter the shining palace of the sun," &c.
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.120
"A greater lamp than that bright eye of heaven," &c.
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.154.
--"the golden eye of heaven."
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.155.
"Wherein are rocks of pearl that shine as bright," &c.
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.177.
(5) "I'll have them fly to India for gold," &c.
--_Faustus_, vol. ii. p. 123.
(6) "And show your pleasure to the Persian
As fits the legate of the stately Turk."
--_Tamb_. vol. i. p.87.
{226}
(7) "_Wagner_. Come hither, sirha! Boy!
_Clown_. Boy! O disgrace to my person!" &c.
--_Faustus_, vol. ii, p. 131.
Leaving the question in this position for the present, I shall be
glad of such information from any of your readers as may tend to
throw a light on the date of Shakspeare's _Taming of the
Shrew_. I find Mr. Collier's opinion expressed in the following
words:--
"The great probability is that _Hamlet_ was written
at the earliest in 1601, and the _Taming of the Shrew_
perhaps came from the pen of its author not very long afterwards."
I am anxious to ascertain whether I am acquainted with all the
circumstances on which the above opinion is founded; as those which
I can, at this moment, recall, are to my mind hardly sufficiently
conclusive. Rejecting the supposed allusion to Heywood's _Woman
Kill'd with Kindness_, which I see, by a note, Mr. Collier gives
up as untenable ground, the facts, I believe, remain as follows:--
First: _The Taming of the Shrew_ was not mentioned by Meres in
1598, whereupon it is assumed that "had it been written, he could
scarcely have failed to mention it." And,
Second: it must have been written after _Hamlet_, because the
name Baptista, used incorrectly in that play as a feminine name, is
properly applied to a man in this. And these, I believe, are all.
Now, the first of these assumptions I answer, by asking, "Does it
follow?" Of all Shakspeare's plays which had then appeared, only
three had been published before 1598, and not one comedy. Meres, in
all probability, had no list to refer to, nor was he making one: he
simply adduced, in evidence of his assertion of Shakspeare's
excellence, both in tragedy and comedy, such plays of both kinds as
he _could_ recollect, or the best of those which he _did_
recollect. Let us put the case home; not in reference to any modern
dramatist (though Shakspeare in his own day was not the great
exception that he stands with us), but to the world-honoured poet
himself, who has founded a sort of religion in us: I, for my part,
would not be bound not to omit, in a hasty enumeration, and having
no books to refer to, more important works than the _Taming of the
Shrew_. In short, the omission by Meres proves no more than that
he either did not think of the play, or did not think it necessary
to mention it. To the second assumption, I answer that the date of
the _first Hamlet_ is "not proven:" it may have been an early
play. From the play of _Hamlet_, in its earlier form, is the
name Baptiste, where it is used in conjunction with Albertus, taken;
the scene mentioned is Guiana; and there is nothing to lead one to
suppose that the name is used as an Italian name at all. Both the
date of _Hamlet_, therefore, and--whichever way decided--the
conclusion drawn from the supposed mistake, I regard as open
questions. There is yet another circumstance which Mr. Collier
thinks may strengthen his conclusion with regard to the date of this
play. He refers to the production of Dekker's _Medicine for a
Curst Wife_, which he thinks was a revival of the old _Taming
of a Shrew_, brought out as a rival to Shakspeare's play. This is
easily answered. In the first place, Katharine, the Shrew, is not a
"curst wife:" she becomes a wife, it is true, in the course of the
play; but this is a part of the process of taming her. But what
seems at once to disprove it is, that, according to Henslow's
account, Dekker was paid 10_l_. 10_s_. for the piece in
question; as Mr. Collier observes, an "unusually large sum" for a
new piece, and not likely to be paid for the bashing up of an old
one. I am thus left entirely without a clue, derivable from external
evidence, to the date of this play; and shall be glad to know if
there is any thing, throwing light upon the point, which I may have
overlooked. That more important consequences are involved in this
question than appear upon the face of it, I think I shall be able to
show in a future communication; and this is my excuse for
trespassing so much upon your space and your readers' patience.