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