Notes and Queries, Number 176, March 12, 1853

Notes and Queries, Number 176, March 12, 1853 - A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.

The Rev. Mr. Dyce omits the play of Lust's Dominion, or the Lascivious Queen, from the excellent, and (in all other respects) complete edition of Marlowe's Works which he has lately published, considering it to have been "distinctly shown by Mr. Collier" that it could not have been the work of that poet. I must say, however, that the argument for its rejection does not appear to me by any means conclusive. It runs thus: in the first act is presented the death of a certain King Philip of Spain; and this King Philip must be Philip II., because in a tract printed in the Somers' Collection, giving an account of the "last words" of that monarch, are found passages which are plainly copied in the play. Now, Philip II. did not die till 1598, and the tract was not published till 1599, whereas Marlowe's death took place in 1593. Ergo, Marlowe could not have written Lust's Dominion. But we know that it was the constant custom of managers to cause acting plays to be altered and added to from time to time: the curious Diary of Manager Henslowe is full of entries of the payment of sums of twenty shillings or so, to the authors whom he kept, for "adycyons" to the works of others. And surely it is no forced hypothesis to suppose that some literary cobbler employed to touch up Marlowe's work, finding a King Philip in it, should have thought to improve and give it an air of historic truth, by introducing the circumstances furnished by the pamphlet into the death-scene. Apart from these particulars, the king is neither Philip I. nor Philip II., but a mere King Philip of Spain in general, quite superior to historical considerations. The positive evidence in support of Marlowe's authorship is tolerably strong, though not absolutely conclusive. The earliest extant edition of the play bears his name at full length on the title-page. It is true that the date of that edition is 1650, sixty-six years after his death: still the publisher must have had some reasonable ground for attributing the work to him; and in all cases comparatively little value ought to be attached to negative, when opposed by positive evidence. We {254}need look no farther than this very edition of Marlowe for an illustration of the possibility such a combination of circumstances as I have supposed. In the earliest known edition of the play of Dr. Faustus is found an allusion to a certain Dr. Lopez, who did not attain notoriety (by being hanged) till after Marlowe's death; but Mr. Dyce very justly only infers from this that the particular passage is an interpolation. According to the reasoning applied to Lust's Dominion, Faustus also should have been expelled summarily, upon this objection: and yet, in the case of that play, we know that such a conclusion from such premises would have been erroneous. I am unwilling to lay much stress on the internal evidence to be drawn from the language and conduct of the play itself, because I am aware how little reliance can be placed on reasoning drawn from such observations; but no one, I think, will deny that there are many passages which at least might have been written by Marlowe: and, on the whole, I submit that it would have been more satisfactory if Mr. Dyce had included it in this edition. ......Buy Now (To Read More)

Product details

Ebook Number: 42791
Author: Various
Release Date: May 24, 2013
Format: eBook
Language: English

Contributors

Editor: Bell, George, 1814-1890