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.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25